Re: [PATCH] finish processor.h integration

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

 



On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 6:54 PM, Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > > What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
> > > integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are
> > > moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are
> > > deleted. Note that there's much less headers included in the final
> > > version.
> >
> > Either I must be missing something or this patch was corrupted somehow.
>
> neither.
> Note the else in the middle. It's just a mistake in the comment.

Wouldn't an explicit second #ifdef block be a lot clearer (and improve 
maintainability) in this case?

An #else can easily be overlooked among other preprocessor commands or when 
#ifdefs get nested.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux