Re: [PATCH] smiapp: re-use clamp_t instead of min(..., max(...))

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 06:49:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> []
> 
> >> +     max_m = clamp_t(u32, max_m, sensor->limits[SMIAPP_LIMIT_SCALER_M_MIN],
> >> +                     sensor->limits[SMIAPP_LIMIT_SCALER_M_MAX]);
> >
> > Do you need clamp_t()? Wouldn't plain clamp() do?
> 
> The *_t variants are preferred due to they are faster (no type checking).
> 
> > I can change it if you're ok with that.
> 
> I don't know why you may choose clamp instead of clamp_t here. Are you
> going to change variable types?

Probably not. But clamp() would serve as a sanity check vs. clamp_t() which
just does the thing. I'd prefer clamp() --- the compiler will not spend much
time on it anyway.

-- 
Cheers,

Sakari Ailus
e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx	XMPP: sailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Input]     [Video for Linux]     [Gstreamer Embedded]     [Mplayer Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux