Re: [RFC] meta ematch

[jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 2005-01-16 at 11:32, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> 
[..]
> >BTW, it would probably be useful to return some mnemonic instead of 0.

> Returning 0 for success and negative error codes is perfectly fine as long
> as you don't need any magic numbers (1, 2, ..).

[..]

> >>+static int meta_int_compare(struct meta_obj *a, struct meta_obj *b)
> >>+{
> >>+   /* Let gcc optimize it, the unlikely is not really based on
> >>+    * some numbers but jump free code for missmatches seems
> >>+    * more logical.
> >>+    */
> >>+   if (unlikely(a == b))
> >>+           return 0;
> >>+   else if (a < b)
> >>+           return -1;
> >>+   else
> >>+           return 1;
> >>+}
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Would be very useful to return mnemonics for readability.
> >  
> >
> Same as for above, everyone knows what to expect from a *_compare function.
> Returning stuff like CMP_LT, CMP_BT, .. is just ugly.

I am not sure i remember whether -1 or 1 is the LT even though i have
used strcmp for years ;-> Actually i try hard not to have my brain
remember. In the case of the .get function above, i may agree with you
that returning MATCH_SUCEEDED may be a little overkill.

cheers,
jamal