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

Reply via email to