Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261606AbVB1Nvg (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:51:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261610AbVB1Nuv (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:50:51 -0500 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.200]:51692 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261596AbVB1NsO (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:48:14 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=A50BuOBCSL6pfNa36CtdhZ3jP7tM81BlLZMF8oiBMJinEkwr+tJSQNNkttM1Po/DBZlfdVTeubjxzVYPdTaVkP7fYxbJogHfXnLEcRceEOsefrLplIHeuqxh3vuPIbZILXAwisRl6ZgQI7fXe+mis8ql9TybDhZfcMMDqQORJUE= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:48:12 -0500 From: Dmitry Torokhov Reply-To: dtor_core@ameritech.net To: "colbuse@ensisun.imag.fr" Subject: Re: [patch 3/2] drivers/char/vt.c: remove unnecessary code Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@zip.com.au In-Reply-To: <1109596437.422319158044b@webmail.imag.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1109596437.422319158044b@webmail.imag.fr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1133 Lines: 35 On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:13:57 +0100, colbuse@ensisun.imag.fr wrote: > > >On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:57:59PM +0100, colbuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> Please _don't_ apply this, but tell me what you think about it. > > >It's broken. 8) > > >> --- old/drivers/char/vt.c 2004-12-24 22:35:25.000000000 +0100 > >> +++ new/drivers/char/vt.c 2005-02-28 12:53:57.933256631 +0100 > >> @@ -1655,9 +1655,9 @@ > >> vc_state = ESnormal; > >> return; > >> case ESsquare: > >> - for(npar = 0 ; npar < NPAR ; npar++) > >> + for(npar = NPAR-1; npar < NPAR; npar--) > > >How many times do you want this for loop to run? > > NPAR times :-). As I stated, npar is unsigned. > for (npar = NPAR - 1; npar >= 0; npar--) would be more readable and may be even faster on a dumb compiler than your variant. Still, I'd have compiler worry about such micro-optimizations. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/