On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 07:46:26PM -0400, Chen, Gong wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 01:06:31PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > + if (ras_userspace_consumers() == 0) {
> >
> > if (!ras_userspace_consumers())
> >
> No, it is not a pointer so I don't think it is very
> meaningful just to save some bytes.
Btw, this is exactly why your patches take too long to review - you like
to debate more instead of listening to the maintainers. Next time you
want to speed up the process, just think about that.
I think the amount of time I wasted to explain all the crap to you is
more than I've spent actually reviewing your patches. How about you
do what you're told for a change, not change agreed upon stuff after
review because then I have to go and review it all over again from the
beginning and thus make both our lives easier?
As to the question why you should listen to the maintainers: that's
because we get to maintain your code after you go and do something else
so it better be readable to us.
Now to answer your direct question:
if (!ras_userspace_consumers())
reads straight away as "if there are no ras userspace consumers" instead
of "if the number of the ras userspace consumers is zero".
Got it?!
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
