Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-160662-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 21:19:02 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
	dsahern@kernel.org, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp_bbr: replace lambda expression with bitwise
 operation for bit flip
Message-ID: <20240426201902.GQ2118490@ZenIV>
References: <20240426152011.37069-1-richard120310@gmail.com>
 <CANn89iKenW5SxMGm753z8eawg+7drUz7oZcTR06habjcFmdqVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zivd4agQ8D6rUKvt@vaxr-BM6660-BM6360>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zivd4agQ8D6rUKvt@vaxr-BM6660-BM6360>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 01:01:21AM +0800, I Hsin Cheng wrote:

> I see, thanks for your explanation.
> I thought the compilers behavior might alters due to different 
> architecture or different compilers.
> So would you recommend on the proposed changes or we should stick to
>  the original implementation? 
> Personally I think my version or your proposed change are both more 
> understandable and elegant than the lambda expression.

Out of curiosity, where do you see any lambda expressions in the entire
thing?