[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130127201947.GO16282@mwanda>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 23:19:47 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Paul Fulghum <paulkf@...rogate.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] TTY: synclink, small cleanup in dtr_rts()
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 12:04:38PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 22:40 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > There is a kind of precedence problem here, but it doesn't affect how
> > the code works because ->serial_signals is unsigned char. We want to
> > clear two flags here.
> >
> > #define SerialSignal_RTS 0x20 /* Request to Send */
> > #define SerialSignal_DTR 0x80 /* Data Terminal Ready */
> >
> > Without the parenthesis then it does:
> >
> > info->serial_signals &= 0x5f;
> >
> > With the parenthesis it does:
> >
> > info->serial_signals &= 0xffffff5f;
> >
> > info->serial_signals is an unsigned char so the two statements are
> > equivalent, but it's cleaner to add the parenthesis. In other dtr_rts()
> > functions the parenthesis are there so this makes it more consistent.
>
>
> Wouldn't it be clearer still to use | instead of +
>
Yeah. I think it would be, but adding bitflags together instead of
doing bitwise ORs is very common as well.
I would Ack the patch you sent though.
regards,
dan carpenter
--
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