[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D5BEF7E.4010409@ladisch.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:38:38 +0100
From: Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>
To: Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>
CC: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>
Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 3/3] hwmon: (jc42) do not allow writing to
locked registers
Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:11:35AM -0500, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> > Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 08:02:38AM -0500, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> > > > + readonly = config & JC42_CFG_TCRIT_LOCK;
> > >
> > > You are assigning a non-bool to a bool. I can see that recent C compilers
> > > do the right thing, but I am not sure if that is always the case.
> > > So I would prefer
> > > readonly = !!(config & JC42_CFG_TCRIT_LOCK);
> > >
> > > Same for the assignments below. I can make that change if you are ok with it.
> >
> > I cannot imagine how a compiler could get this wrong even if it tried
> > to, but if you think so, go ahead. :)
>
> I don't know. Maybe I am just paranoid. Using !! is how I usually see it done.
Usually, !! is used to convert non-zero to the _integer_ 1. With
a compiler that implements bool, this conversion is already implied.
On older compilers, someone might be tempted to do "#define bool int",
but this is not an issue with the compilers required by Linux.
Regards,
Clemens
--
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