[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47C849B8.1000902@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:06:48 +0100
From: Mark Pearson <devnull.port@...glemail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Karol Kozimor <sziwan@...l.org.pl>, Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>,
corentincj@...aif.net, sziwan@...rs.sourceforge.net,
acpi4asus-user@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.c: Correct use of ! and &
Andrew Morton wrote:
>> Seems an odd way of doing:
>>
>> led_out ^= 0x01;
>
> It does.
>
>> It this due to some optimisation?
>
> Surely not ;)
>
;) Thought so - one doesn't like to be too presumptuous ;)
> That code has been there for many years.
>
> I changed the patch to this:
>
> --- a/drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.c~drivers-acpi-asus_acpic-correct-use-of-and
> +++ a/drivers/acpi/asus_acpi.c
> @@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ write_led(const char __user * buffer, un
> (led_out) ? (hotk->status | ledmask) : (hotk->status & ~ledmask);
>
> if (invert) /* invert target value */
> - led_out = !led_out & 0x1;
> + led_out = !led_out;
>
> if (!write_acpi_int(hotk->handle, ledname, led_out, NULL))
> printk(KERN_WARNING "Asus ACPI: LED (%s) write failed\n",
> _
>
>
Is the ! operator architecture/compiler dependent? or can one always say that
!NON_ZERO_VALUE == 0 and !0 == 1?
Cheers, Mark.
--
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