Hi Arik,
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Arik,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Hi Arik,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Arik Nemtsov <arik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> When a system contains only self-managed regulatory devices all hints
>>>>> from the regulatory core are ignored. Stop hint processing early in this
>>>>> case. These systems usually don't have CRDA deployed, which results in
>>>>> endless (irrelevent) logs of the form:
>>>>> cfg80211: Calling CRDA to update world regulatory domain
>>>>>
>>>>> Make sure there's at least one self-managed device before discarding a
>>>>> hint, in order to prevent initial hints from disappearing on CRDA
>>>>> managed systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arik Nemtsov <arikx.nemtsov@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> net/wireless/reg.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/wireless/reg.c b/net/wireless/reg.c
>>>>> index 521f3a4..588e45f 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/wireless/reg.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/wireless/reg.c
>>>>> @@ -2120,6 +2120,26 @@ out_free:
>>>>> reg_free_request(reg_request);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +static bool reg_only_self_managed_wiphys(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev;
>>>>> + struct wiphy *wiphy;
>>>>> + bool self_managed_found = false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ASSERT_RTNL();
>>>>
>>>> Would it make sense to quickly return false here if the list is empty
>>>> rather than the whole mess with the new variable?
>>>
>>> I'm thinking the "mess" isn't really such a mess - are you expecting a
>>> real performance hit?
>>
>> Personally, purely for readability, I prefer the style of checking and
>> returning as early as possible.
>
> Actually I thought readability was on my side - wanted to point out
> the shorter version of the code is more legible.
> I guess it's a matter of personal taste :)
Indeed it is.
In terms of length, your version is a variable definition and two
lines in the internal if statement. Mine is a blank line and two lines
in a separate if statement. (Assuming the condition doesn't run over
80 chars)
>> Arguably doing it my way trades speed for memory efficiency and your
>> way trades memory efficiency for speed, but it's so small (and this is
>> so far from a hot path) that there's no real argument either way
>> whatsoever.
>
> Agree it doesn't matter for these reasons.
At the end of the day, it's a stalemate for a lot of reasons. You
prefer this way, it's your code, so leave it as it is. I apologise for
the noise =)
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
