On Sun, 2021-08-15 at 18:36 +0200, Len Baker wrote: > Hi Joe, Hello Len. Don't take this advice too seriously, it's just bikeshedding but it seems to me an unexpected use of a strcmp equivalent in a non performance sensitive path. > On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 08:06:45AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: [] > > bikeshed: > > > > I think this change is less intelligible than the original strcmp. > > So, if I understand correctly you suggest to change the above line for: > else if (strcmp(orient, "0") == 0) Yes. In kernel sources it's about 2:1 in favor of '!strcmp()' over 'strcmp() == 0' $ git grep -P '\!\s*strcmp\b' | wc -l 3457 $ git grep -P '\bstrcmp\s*\([^\)]+\)\s*==\s*0\b' | wc -l 1719 And it's your choice to use one or the other or just your V4 patch. btw, according to godbolt: gcc -O2 doesn't call strcmp and produces the same object code as your byte comparisons. clang 11 calls strcmp regardless of optimization level.
