On Sunday March 23, maan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> The only caller of sb_equal() tests the return value against
> zero, so it's OK to return the negated return value of memcmp().
>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Noll <maan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/md/md.c | 6 +-----
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
> index c559b9e..58762dd 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
> @@ -572,11 +572,7 @@ static int sb_equal(mdp_super_t *sb1, mdp_super_t *sb2)
> tmp1->nr_disks = 0;
> tmp2->nr_disks = 0;
>
> - if (memcmp(tmp1, tmp2, MD_SB_GENERIC_CONSTANT_WORDS * 4))
> - ret = 0;
> - else
> - ret = 1;
> -
> + ret = !memcmp(tmp1, tmp2, MD_SB_GENERIC_CONSTANT_WORDS * 4);
One of my pet hates is "!strcmp" and similarly "!memcmp".
memcmp doesn't return a "boolean", so testing it or its inverse
doesn't read well. I always compare the result with '0'. The
comparison operator used matches exactly how I want to compare the two
values.
So I've changed this to
ret = (memcmp(....) == 0).
NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
