[patch -mm 1/1] remove useless tolower in isofs

[patch -mm 1/1] remove useless tolower in isofs

[young dave]

Hi,
Remove useless tolower in isofs

Signed-off-by: dave young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>

 inode.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff -dur linux/fs/isofs/inode.c linux.new/fs/isofs/inode.c
--- linux/fs/isofs/inode.c      2007-05-28 08:54:33.000000000 +0000
+++ linux.new/fs/isofs/inode.c  2007-05-28 08:55:02.000000000 +0000
@@ -197,7 +197,7 @@
        hash = init_name_hash();
        while (len--) {
                c = tolower(*name++);
-               hash = partial_name_hash(tolower(c), hash);
+               hash = partial_name_hash(c, hash);
        }
        qstr->hash = end_name_hash(hash);

Regards
dave

Re: [patch -mm 1/1] remove useless tolower in isofs

[John Anthony Kazos Jr.]

> Hi,
> Remove useless tolower in isofs
> 
> Signed-off-by: dave young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>
> 
> inode.c |    2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -dur linux/fs/isofs/inode.c linux.new/fs/isofs/inode.c
> --- linux/fs/isofs/inode.c      2007-05-28 08:54:33.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux.new/fs/isofs/inode.c  2007-05-28 08:55:02.000000000 +0000
> @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@
>        hash = init_name_hash();
>        while (len--) {
>                c = tolower(*name++);
> -               hash = partial_name_hash(tolower(c), hash);
> +               hash = partial_name_hash(c, hash);
>        }
>        qstr->hash = end_name_hash(hash);

How about this? A lot more readable and doesn't even need an intermediate 
value.

for (; len; len--, name++) {
	hash = partial_name_hash(tolower(*name), hash);
}

Or if you don't think that way is more readable, how about this?

while (len) {
	hash = partial_name_hash(tolower(*name), hash);
	name++;
	len--;
}

And then there's the supercompact form.

while (len--) {
	hash = partial_name_hash(tolower(*name++), hash);
}

But I do not like the last one at all. The first one is the best, because 
it clearly separates the condition and iteration parts of the expression, 
while STILL being only three lines long. Or two, if you omit the braces. 
(But you shouldn't.)

Re: [patch -mm 1/1] remove useless tolower in isofs

[young dave]

Hi,
> And then there's the supercompact form.
>
> while (len--) {
>         hash = partial_name_hash(tolower(*name++), hash);
> }
>
> But I do not like the last one at all. The first one is the best, because
> it clearly separates the condition and iteration parts of the expression,
> while STILL being only three lines long. Or two, if you omit the braces.
> (But you shouldn't.)
>

IMO, I like the last one, but I prefer to keep the original author's
one, I only remove the unnecessary tolower function.
What do you think about this , Andrew?

Regards
dave

Re: [patch -mm 1/1] remove useless tolower in isofs

[Pekka Enberg]

On 5/28/07, young dave <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote:
> Remove useless tolower in isofs

[snip]

>                 c = tolower(*name++);
> -               hash = partial_name_hash(tolower(c), hash);
> +               hash = partial_name_hash(c, hash);

Looks good to me.

Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>

Re: [patch -mm 1/1] remove useless tolower in isofs

[young dave]

Hi,
Thanks,  can this small fix be merged?

Re: [patch -mm 1/1] remove useless tolower in isofs

[Pekka Enberg]

On 5/28/07, young dave <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks,  can this small fix be merged?

Yes. Please be patient and wait for Andrew to pick it up.

Re: [patch -mm 1/1] remove useless tolower in isofs

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 28 May 2007 03:11:04 +0000
"young dave" <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> > And then there's the supercompact form.
> >
> > while (len--) {
> >         hash = partial_name_hash(tolower(*name++), hash);
> > }
> >
> > But I do not like the last one at all. The first one is the best, because
> > it clearly separates the condition and iteration parts of the expression,
> > while STILL being only three lines long. Or two, if you omit the braces.
> > (But you shouldn't.)
> >
> 
> IMO, I like the last one, but I prefer to keep the original author's
> one, I only remove the unnecessary tolower function.
> What do you think about this , Andrew?
> 

Don't care much.  The code as it stands is suitably paranoid about 
buggy implementations of tolower() which evaluate their arg more
than once ;)

Your email client replaces tabs with spaces.

Re: [patch -mm 1/1] remove useless tolower in isofs

[young dave]

Hi,
Thank you, andrew.

> Your email client replaces tabs with spaces.

Really? I use gmail web via firefox,  next time I will use mutt to
send patches.

Regards
dave

Re: [patch -mm 1/1] remove useless tolower in isofs

[young dave]

Hi,

> Your email client replaces tabs with spaces.

The  tabs replacing was caused by copying them from vi session in
gnome-terminal. I find the proper way is to copy them from some gui
editor.

Regards
dave