Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-160958-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 16:31:58 +0800
From: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@gmail.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: 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: <Ziy3/k93gBrykA1t@vaxr-BM6660-BM6360>
References: <20240426152011.37069-1-richard120310@gmail.com>
 <CANn89iKenW5SxMGm753z8eawg+7drUz7oZcTR06habjcFmdqVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zivd4agQ8D6rUKvt@vaxr-BM6660-BM6360>
 <20240426201902.GQ2118490@ZenIV>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240426201902.GQ2118490@ZenIV>

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 09:19:02PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 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?

Sorry, it's my fault to address the expression as "lambda expression",
it should be called as "conditional" or "ternary" operator.

Thanks for your remind.