Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:45:55 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 2/3] x86, ptdump: Simplify page flag evaluation code |
| |
* Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 21 September 2014 21:49, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On 9/21/2014 8:26 AM, Mathias Krause wrote: > >> > >> - if (pr & _PAGE_PCD) > >> - pt_dump_cont_printf(m, dmsg, "PCD "); > >> - else > >> - pt_dump_cont_printf(m, dmsg, " "); > >> + pt_dump_cont(m, dmsg, "%-4s", pr & _PAGE_USER ? "USR" : > >> ""); > > > > > > while you have some nice cleanups in your patch, I can't say I consider this > > an improvement. > > Yes the C standard allows ? to be used like this > > but no, I don't think it improves readability in general. > > Not in general, but in this case, it does, IMHO. > > > (I think for me the main exception is NULL pointer cases, but this is not > > one of these) > > Apparently such a pattern (using the question mark operator combined > with a bit test to choose string constants) is used quite often in the > linux kernel as a simple grep tells me (probably catches a few false > positives but still a representative number):
Both can be used (although I too find the original version easier to read), and it's usually the taste/opinion of the original author whose choice we prefer.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |