Hi Markus,
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:57 AM Finn Thain <fthain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
From: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 17:11:37 +0200
Avoid an extra function call
by using a ternary operator instead of a conditional statement for a
setting selection.
Have you looked at the actual assembler output generated by the compiler?
This issue was detected by using the Coccinelle software.
Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/m68k/mm/mcfmmu.c | 10 ++++------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/m68k/mm/mcfmmu.c b/arch/m68k/mm/mcfmmu.c
index 6cb1e41d58d0..02fc0778028e 100644
--- a/arch/m68k/mm/mcfmmu.c
+++ b/arch/m68k/mm/mcfmmu.c
@@ -146,12 +146,10 @@ int cf_tlb_miss(struct pt_regs *regs, int write, int dtlb, int extension_word)
mmu_write(MMUDR, (pte_val(*pte) & PAGE_MASK) |
((pte->pte) & CF_PAGE_MMUDR_MASK) | MMUDR_SZ_8KB | MMUDR_X);
-
- if (dtlb)
- mmu_write(MMUOR, MMUOR_ACC | MMUOR_UAA);
- else
- mmu_write(MMUOR, MMUOR_ITLB | MMUOR_ACC | MMUOR_UAA);
-
+ mmu_write(MMUOR,
+ dtlb
+ ? MMUOR_ACC | MMUOR_UAA
+ : MMUOR_ITLB | MMUOR_ACC | MMUOR_UAA);
While the ternary operator can be useful for short expressions, it can
also lead to hard-to-read code. IMHO the latter is the case here
(hint: the expression needs 3 lines).
If you are trying to avoid redundancy, why not finish the job?
+ mmu_write(MMUOR, (dtlb ? 0 : MMUOR_ITLB) | MMUOR_ACC | MMUOR_UAA);
Thanks Finn, much better!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
