[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090216223001.GW28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:30:01 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: chas3@...rs.sourceforge.net
Cc: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ATM: misplaced parentheses?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 05:02:36PM -0500, Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR) wrote:
> that doesnt seem to make sense either. the original code
> is:
>
> for (i = 128; i != 0; i >>= 1) { /* write command out */
> ...
> tmp = (lanai->conf1 & ~CONFIG1_PROMDATA) |
> (data & i) ? CONFIG1_PROMDATA : 0;
>
> since i is always positive here, you wouldnt need the ?: if your suggested
> fix is the original intent. it looks like setting CONFIG1_PROMDATA
> means '1' and not setting it means '0' when writing the value of data
> to the register.
What the hell does it have to do with i being positive? || variant is,
of course, silly; it's very obvious what's going on here. Garden-variety
bit-banging, IOW
tmp = (lanai->conf1 & ~CONFIG1_PROMDATA) |
((data & i) ? CONFIG1_PROMDATA : 0);
and while you technically only need parens around ?:, in this case it's
better to keep it fully parenthesised - more readable that way.
The lack of parens around ?: in the current tree is an obvious bug.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists