On 7/12/16 12:20, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Chen Gang <cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn> writes:
>
>> On 7/11/16 07:47, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 07/09/2016 09:29 AM, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
>>>> -static inline int arch_validate_prot(unsigned long prot)
>>>> +static inline bool arch_validate_prot(unsigned long prot)
>>>> {
>>>> if (prot & ~(PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC | PROT_SEM | PROT_SAO))
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> - if ((prot & PROT_SAO) && !cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_SAO))
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> - return 1;
>>>> + return false;
>>>> + return (prot & PROT_SAO) == 0 || cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_SAO);
>>>> }
>>>> #define arch_validate_prot(prot) arch_validate_prot(prot)
>>>
>>> Please don't do things like this. They're not obviously correct and
>>> also have no obvious benefit. You also don't mention why you bothered
>>> to alter the logical structure of these checks.
>>>
>>
>> For all cases, bool is equal or a little better than int, and they are
>> equal in our case (2 final outputs are same). So for me, it may belong
>> to trivial patch, which can be skipped by the normal patch maintainers.
>>
>> As a 'trivial' patch:
>>
>> - For a pure Boolean function, bool return value is more readable than
>> int.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Please send a patch that does that and only that.
>
OK, thanks.
After check the assembly output, for some cases, merging 3 lines to 1
line may be a little more readable, but compiler will generate a little
bad output code.
I shall send patch v2 for it within this weekend.
Thanks.
--
Chen Gang (陈刚)
Managing Natural Environments is the Duty of Human Beings.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
