Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:06:14 +0100 | From | colbuse@ensisun ... | Subject | Re: [patch 3/2] drivers/char/vt.c: remove unnecessary code |
| |
>> - for(npar = 0 ; npar < NPAR ; npar++) >> + for(npar = NPAR - 1; npar >= 0; npar--) >> par[npar] = 0;
>if you really want to clean this up..
Well, actually, I was not myself entirely convinced about it... This is the reason for I wrote "please _don't_ apply this, but tell me what you think about it.".
>why not use memset() instead ?
Because I simply didn't thought to it :-) .
Hey, that makes fully sense! So far I know, memset() is quicker than (or as quick as) a loop, and it remains fully readable (in my opinion :).
Well, such a patch would be :
--- drivers/char/vt.c 2004-12-24 22:35:25.000000000 +0100 +++ drivers/char/vt2.c 2005-02-28 15:55:11.782717810 +0100 @@ -1655,8 +1655,8 @@ vc_state = ESnormal; return; case ESsquare: - for(npar = 0 ; npar < NPAR ; npar++) - par[npar] = 0; + /* Setting par[]'s elems at 0. */ + memset(par, 0, NPAR*sizeof(unsigned int)); npar = 0; vc_state = ESgetpars; if (c == '[') { /* Function key */
Thank you for the suggestion. What do you think of this one?
(Please note that I'm not trying to get a patch for it _by force_ into the kernel. If it's a bad idea, let's let thing like they currently are, the current loop just works.)
cu
-- Emmanuel Colbus Club GNU/Linux ENSIMAG - Departement telecoms
------------------------------------------------- envoyé via Webmail/IMAG ! - 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/
| |