Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1760787AbXIYAUZ@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1760787AbXIYAUZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:20:25 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753800AbXIYAUN
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:20:13 -0400
Received: from smtp-out2.tiscali.nl ([195.241.79.177]:38716 "EHLO
	smtp-out2.tiscali.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755689AbXIYAUL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:20:11 -0400
Message-ID: <46F85431.1020306@tiscali.nl>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:20:01 +0200
From: roel <12o3l@tiscali.nl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, roel <12o3l@tiscali.nl>, travis@sgi.com,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
       Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>, Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: Convert cpuinfo_x86 array to a per_cpu array
 v3
References: <20070924210853.256462000@sgi.com> <20070924210853.516791000@sgi.com> <46F833D4.8050507@tiscali.nl> <20070924232423.GJ8127@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070924232423.GJ8127@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1525
Lines: 40

Dave Jones wrote:
> <excessive quoting trimmed, please don't quote 40K of text
>  to add a single line reply>

Ok, sorry, I don't know these rules

> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:01:56AM +0200, roel wrote:
> 
>  > > --- a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k6.c
>  > > +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k6.c
>  > > @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver powernow_k6
>  > >   */
>  > >  static int __init powernow_k6_init(void)
>  > >  {
>  > > -	struct cpuinfo_x86      *c = cpu_data;
>  > > +	struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(0);
>  > >  
>  > >  	if ((c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD) || (c->x86 != 5) ||
>  > >  		((c->x86_model != 12) && (c->x86_model != 13)))
>  > 
>  > while we're at it, we could change this to
>  > 
>  >   	if (!(c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD && c->x86 == 5 &&
>  >   		(c->x86_model == 12 || c->x86_model == 13)))
> 
> For what purpose?  There's nothing wrong with the code as it stands,
> and inverting the tests means we'd have to move a bunch of
> code inside the if arm instead of just returning -ENODEV.

It's not inverting the test, so you don't need to move code. It evaluates 
the same, only the combined negation is moved to the front. I suggested it
to increase clarity, it results in the same assembly language.

Roel

-
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/