On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 09:16:57PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote: > On Apr 22, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 06:36:41PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote: > >> Just being paranoid... strncmp? > > > > Why ? It's a terminated string vs a string literal, what do you wanna > > use as the third argument: strlen("AuthenticAmd") ? . 100% pointless. > > I can see your point and yet it is being used in the line below your change. > Do you want to call that author's intent '100% pointless' as well just for > the sake of winning an argument or do you simply not care about the depth and > inherent wisdom of the code base you are working on? >
You rush into conclusions, cpu_model is different, he actually wants the first 5 bytes to evaluate to "Intel", not the whole string, which could be something like: hw.model=Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E31220 @ 3.10GHz > > > >> And how about consolidating style while at it? "!" vs. "== 0" - see code > >> bits below change. > > > > Consolidating how ? Are you suggesting we change all strcmp calls in > > kernel to use "== 0" ? Please. > > Personally, I don't care either way, but it's bad style to ignore the context > and change styles. It makes the code harder to read, understand and maintain. > Take a look. Ok? > You care enough to send an email without even checking the other uses, if you did, you'll see that !strcmp is more consistent for this case than strncmp. *You* are ignoring the context and trying to change styles. > >>> + if (!strcmp(cpu_vendor, "AuthenticAMD")) > >>> amd64_errata(ci); > >>> > >>> if (strncmp(mycpu_model, "VIA Nano processor", 18) == 0) { > > > Franco