Re: Linux 2.6.11.6

[Kyle Moffett]

On Mar 25, 2005, at 22:47, Hua Zhong wrote:
> >  int bt_sock_unregister(int proto)
> >  {
> > -	if (proto >= BT_MAX_PROTO)
> > +	if (proto < 0 || proto >= BT_MAX_PROTO)
> >  		return -EINVAL;
>
> Just curious: would it be better to say
>
> if ((unsigned int)proto >= BT_MAX_PTORO)

Erm, it _would_ work, but it's _much_ less clear, less typesafe,
and besides, GCC can probably optimize that test anyways.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r  
!y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/