Re: [v2 PATCH 2/2] netprio_cgroup: Use memcpy instead of the for-loopto copy priomap

From: Srivatsa S. Bhat
Date: Wed Sep 12 2012 - 06:23:50 EST

On 09/12/2012 01:54 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 09/12/2012 01:19 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:37:47 +0530
>>> + memcpy(new_priomap->priomap, old_priomap->priomap,
>>> + old_priomap->priomap_len *
>>> + sizeof(old_priomap->priomap[0]));
>> This argument indentation is ridiculous. Try:
>> memcpy(new_priomap->priomap, old_priomap->priomap,
>> old_priomap->priomap_len *
>> sizeof(old_priomap->priomap[0]));
>> Using TABs exclusively for argumentat indentation is not the goal.
>> Rather, lining the arguments up properly so that they sit at the first
>> column after the first line's openning parenthesis is what you should
>> be trying to achieve.
> OK, will fix it, thanks!
>> And ignoring whatever stylistic convention we may or may not have, I
>> find it impossibly hard to believe that the code quoted above looks
>> good even to you.
> On second thoughts, I think the memcpy in this case will actually be worse
> since it will copy the contents in chunks of smaller size than the for-loop.

Oops, I missed the __HAVE_ARCH_MEMCPY and was looking at the wrong memcpy
implementation.. And in any case, I went totally off-track by your last comment.
I hadn't realized that you were still referring to the way the code looks, rather
than questioning the switch to memcpy. Sorry about that!

I'll fix the odd-looking indentation and repost the patch.

Srivatsa S. Bhat

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at