[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OFC011E4F1.61EF5440-ONC1257450.0038CB52-C1257450.003A0375@de.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 12:33:40 +0200
From: Peter 1 Oberparleiter <Peter.Oberparleiter@...ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] consolidate all within() implementations
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote on 21.05.2008 12:04:26:
> > +static inline int addr_within_len(const void *addr, const void
*start,
> > + size_t len)
> > +{
> > + return ((unsigned long) addr >= (unsigned long) start) &&
> > + ((unsigned long) addr < ((unsigned long) start + len));
> > +}
>
> might be my braindamage, but I'd have written it like:
>
> static inline int
> addr_within_len(const void *addr, const void *start, size_t len)
> {
> return (unsigned long)addr - (unsigned long)start < len;
> }
Definitely another way to put it. In my opinion the intention of the
implementation is more easily understood though when spelling it out
as (a>=b) && (a<c).
> static inline int
> addr_within(const void *add, const void *start, const void *end)
> {
> return addr_within_len(addr, start,
> (unsigned long)end - (unsigned long)start);
> }
For empty ranges (start > end), this produces different (less expected)
results than the previous version.
Regards,
Peter
--
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