Re: [PATCH v8 01/16] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable

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

 



On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ({                                                                    \
>         sizeof(val) <= 4 ? hash_32(val, bits) : hash_long(val, bits); \
> })
>
> Is the better way to go. We are C programmers, we like to see the ?: on
> a single line if possible. The way you have it, looks like three
> statements run consecutively.

If we're C programmers, why use the non-standard statement-expression
at all? And split it onto three lines when it's just a single one?

But whatever. This series has gotten way too much bike-shedding
anyway. I think it should just be applied, since it does remove lines
of code overall. I'd even possibly apply it to mainline, but it seems
to be against linux-next.

             Linus

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]