[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <466DD696.8080901@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:11:18 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
CC: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, dhowells@...hat.com,
galak@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add "is_power_of_2" checking to log2.h.
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> seriously, though, there is the potential of breaking something with
> this change since you can see how there is some inconsistency in how
> it's done *now* just for powerpc which, in some places, defines its
> own versions of this:
>
> ./arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c:
> #define is_power_of_2(x) ((x) != 0 && (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0))
> ./arch/ppc/syslib/ppc85xx_rio.c:
> #define is_power_of_2(x) (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0)
> ./arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c:
> #define is_power_of_2(x) ((x) != 0 && (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0))
>
> note how the first and third macros *won't* consider zero a power of
> two, while the second one *will*. hence the need for a single
> standard for all of this, just to play it safe.
>
I suspect the reason the test for zero was omitted is because the author
didn't want the extra cost (the test for zero needs an extra branch on a
lot of architectures.)
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists