Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 01:02:03AM -0600, Joel Schopp wrote: >>>>> - inode->i_mtime = inode->i_atime = inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME_SEC; >>>>> + inode->i_mtime = CURRENT_TIME_SEC; >>>>> + inode->i_atime = CURRENT_TIME_SEC; >>>>> + inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME_SEC; >>>> multiple assignments like "x = y = z = value;" can potentially >>>> (depending on the compiler and arch) be faster than "x = value; y = >>>> value; z=value;" >>>> >>>> I am surprized that this script complains about them as it is a >>>> perfectly valid thing to do in C. >>> I think it seems wise to ask the maintainers of checkpatch.pl to >>> comment on that. I'm Cc:ing them now. >>> >> There are plenty of things that are valid to do in C that don't make for >> maintainable code. These scripts are designed to make your code easier for >> real people to review and maintain. > > Except that in this case the new variant is not equivalent to the old one...
Yes, you're right. In fact, I felt like sending yet another version of these patches, but this gets preempted all the time by "the other things". Dmitri - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
