On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Thanks Florian. It is unnecessary to simplify it now. Regards Feng > -- > 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 -- 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
