[Cyrill Gorcunov - Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 10:07:44PM +0300] ... | >> + sn->sysctl_table[0].data = &sn->sctp_timeouts[SCTP_CONNTRACK_CLOSED]; | >> + sn->sysctl_table[1].data = &sn->sctp_timeouts[SCTP_CONNTRACK_COOKIE_WAIT]; | >> + sn->sysctl_table[2].data = &sn->sctp_timeouts[SCTP_CONNTRACK_COOKIE_ECHOED]; | >> + sn->sysctl_table[3].data = &sn->sctp_timeouts[SCTP_CONNTRACK_ESTABLISHED]; | >> + sn->sysctl_table[4].data = &sn->sctp_timeouts[SCTP_CONNTRACK_SHUTDOWN_SENT]; | >> + sn->sysctl_table[5].data = &sn->sctp_timeouts[SCTP_CONNTRACK_SHUTDOWN_RECD]; | >> + sn->sysctl_table[6].data = &sn->sctp_timeouts[SCTP_CONNTRACK_SHUTDOWN_ACK_SENT]; | > | > Please use an iteration to avoid these repetitve overly long lines. | > | | Ah, thanks a lot! Indeed. | | - Cyrill - Patrick, if I make it like that (iterations) ... BUILD_BUG_ON(ARRAY_SIZE(sctp_compat_sysctl_table) != SCTP_CONNTRACK_MAX); for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sctp_compat_sysctl_table) - 1; i++) sn->compat_sysctl_table[i].data = &sn->sctp_timeouts[i + 1]; ... it seems the code become hard to follow. Yes it was long (repetitive) lines but it was obvious what is set for every table entry and easy to find what should be changed if SCTP_ enumeration is changed or table entry removed (for some reason). I could make it shorter in length but remain the same explicit assignment. How do you think? - Cyrill - -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
