[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190929171627.1b854409@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 17:16:27 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com, joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com,
rodrigo.vivi@...el.com, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
mingo@...hat.com, linux@...musvillemoes.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make is_signed_type() simpler
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 23:44:24 +0300
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 04:15:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 23:06:19 +0300
> > Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > > * Simply compare -1 with 0,
> > > * Drop unnecessary parenthesis sets
> > >
> > > New macro leaves pointer as "unsigned type" but gives a warning,
> > > which should be fine because asking whether a pointer is signed is
> > > strange question.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what's going on in the i915 driver, it is shipping kernel
> > > pointers to userspace.
> >
> > This tells us what the patch does, not why.
>
> Check the subject line.
I don't see how it's simpler.
-#define is_signed_type(type) (((type)(-1)) < (type)1)
+#define is_signed_type(type) ((type)-1 < 0)
Requires more rational that "make it simpler". Rewriting futex or tty
layer code would be something I would love to see, but just replacing
"(type)1" with "0" isn't worth the churn.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists