[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v8 01/16] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds linux-foundation org>
- To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt goodmis org>
- Cc: snitzer redhat com, fweisbec gmail com, Trond Myklebust netapp com, bfields fieldses org, paul gortmaker windriver com, dm-devel redhat com, agk redhat com, aarcange redhat com, rds-devel oss oracle com, eric dumazet gmail com, venkat x venkatsubra oracle com, ccaulfie redhat com, mingo elte hu, dev openvswitch org, jesse nicira com, josh joshtriplett org, lw cn fujitsu com, mathieu desnoyers efficios com, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928 gmail com>, axboe kernel dk, linux-nfs vger kernel org, edumazet google com, linux-mm kvack org, netdev vger kernel org, linux-kernel vger kernel org, ejt redhat com, ebiederm xmission com, Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>, teigland redhat com, akpm linux-foundation org, davem davemloft net
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH v8 01/16] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:25:46 -0700
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt goodmis org> wrote:
>
> ({ \
> sizeof(val) <= 4 ? hash_32(val, bits) : hash_long(val, bits); \
> })
>
> Is the better way to go. We are C programmers, we like to see the ?: on
> a single line if possible. The way you have it, looks like three
> statements run consecutively.
If we're C programmers, why use the non-standard statement-expression
at all? And split it onto three lines when it's just a single one?
But whatever. This series has gotten way too much bike-shedding
anyway. I think it should just be applied, since it does remove lines
of code overall. I'd even possibly apply it to mainline, but it seems
to be against linux-next.
Linus
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]