[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150105134327.GA8156@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 14:43:27 +0100
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] timecounter: provide a macro to initialize
the cyclecounter mask field.
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 01:20:57PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > +/* simplify initialization of mask field */
> > +#define CYCLECOUNTER_MASK(bits) (cycle_t)((bits) < 64 ? ((1ULL<<(bits))-1) : -1)
>
> That has me chasing through the C integer promotion rules.
> Better might be:
> ((bits) < 64 ? (1ULL << (bits)) - 1 : (((1ULL << 63) - 1) << 1) + 1)
> I actually suspect there is a standard definition somewhere?
This is an exact copy of CLOCKSOURCE_MASK, and if wrong, then both are
wrong. In any case, I can't see any issue here. Is not
(some_int_type) -1
always equal to
0xf...(width of type)
for all integer types, when using 2s compliment?
Thanks
Richard
--
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