Hi, On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 09:58:02AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > 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. I will increase the !strcmp() statistics ;) > > 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. > > Thanks for the feedback, Len
