-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bcm2835-codec tweaks #4113
Merged
Merged
bcm2835-codec tweaks #4113
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ea13e57
media/v4l2_m2m: In buffered mode run jobs if either port is streaming
6by9 ff583bb
staging/bcm2835-codec: Correct logging of size_t to %zu
6by9 bf6d809
staging/bcm2835-codec: Add support for pixel aspect ratio
6by9 420578c
staging/bcm2835-codec: Implement additional g_selection calls for decode
6by9 084084d
staging/bcm2835-codec: Add VC-1 support.
6by9 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just spent a minute or two writing out your condition as you described it:
and then using De Morgan's laws to transform it into what you have written. But I shouldn't have to - what's wrong with the literal version above?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The OP's version is just an evolution of pre-existing (and thus assumed stable to some degree through testing/deployment) code using a minimal set of changes.
The check could also be written as
They are all logically equivalent but having OR inside the clause and top-level NOT in the proposed transformed version depending on the conditions could make it a slower performing check if no short-circuiting happens inside and the result is not final until after the negation is performed at the end.
The changes suggested in c54a951 still employ a short-circuit, so they look ok to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
They aren't wrong, but in (especially) kernel work clarity trumps pretty much everything, especially when the compiler will likely generate the same code in both cases.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree on clarity, thus my suggestion above. Of course, as more conditions get added, the clause may have to be rewritten again.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was just retaining the format of the original term. I'll rework as requested.