[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMZ6RqKJd_qMEy3ohoLAXMgCq2s=AntD0VKCpVwxT1DWjd7KrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 17:21:41 +0900
From: Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr>
To: Felix Maurer <fmaurer@...hat.com>
Cc: socketcan@...tkopp.net, mkl@...gutronix.de, shuah@...nel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
horms@...nel.org, linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, dcaratti@...hat.com, fstornio@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] selftests: can: Document test_raw_filter test cases
On Thu. 24 Apr. 2025 at 16:44, Vincent Mailhol
<mailhol.vincent@...adoo.fr> wrote:
> On Tue. 22 Apr. 2025 at 21:03, Felix Maurer <fmaurer@...hat.com> wrote:
(...)
> > + .exp_rxbits = (1 | 1 << (T_EFF) | 1 << (T_RTR) | 1 << (T_EFF | T_RTR)),
> ^ ^
> Nitpick: those outermost parentheses are not needed.
>
> This took me time to process. Isn't your expression redundant? What about
>
> .exp_rxbits = 1 | 1 << (T_EFF | T_RTR),
>
> ?
>
> This gives me the same result:
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/cr3q5vjMr
Never mind. This was a silly comment. I messed up the operator
precedence in the above example, these are obviously different.
Please disregard my comment and sorry for the noise.
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol
Powered by blists - more mailing lists