On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Jan 30 2007 09:45, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >seriously, though, there is the potential of breaking something with
> >this change since you can see how there is some inconsistency in how
> >it's done *now* just for powerpc which, in some places, defines its
> >own versions of this:
> >
> >./arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c:
> > #define is_power_of_2(x) ((x) != 0 && (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0))
> >./arch/ppc/syslib/ppc85xx_rio.c:
> > #define is_power_of_2(x) (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0)
> >./arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c:
> > #define is_power_of_2(x) ((x) != 0 && (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0))
> >
> >note how the first and third macros *won't* consider zero a power of
> >two, while the second one *will*. hence the need for a single
> >standard for all of this, just to play it safe.
>
> Hmpf. Perhaps a second macro "is_intdivisible_by_power_of_2" or so could
> catch the "am I zero or 2^n" question.
no. if that's really what the programmer wants, they can code it that
way explicitly. let's not make this overly obscure.
rday
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
