Gao Feng <fgao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_nfacct.c b/net/netfilter/xt_nfacct.c > >> index cf32759..7abb5b5 100644 > >> --- a/net/netfilter/xt_nfacct.c > >> +++ b/net/netfilter/xt_nfacct.c > >> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ static bool nfacct_mt(const struct sk_buff *skb, struct xt_action_param *par) > >> > >> overquota = nfnl_acct_overquota(par->net, skb, info->nfacct); > >> > >> - return overquota == NFACCT_UNDERQUOTA ? false : true; > >> + return !(overquota == NFACCT_UNDERQUOTA); > > > > I don't find one better than the other. If you need to change > > it for some reason consider > > > > "return overquota != NFACCT_UNDERQUOTA" > > > > instead of this strange negation. > > Thanks, it is more simple use "!=". > > > > But really, I think its fine as-is. > > It could decrease one condition check and jump. gcc should emit same instructions for all these variants. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
