On Tuesday 13 June 2006 20:11, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 19:43 -0500, Chase Venters wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 June 2006 18:54, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > > + WARN_ON((which_id != PROC_EVENT_UID) && (which_id !=
> > > PROC_EVENT_GID)); }
> >
> > How about WARN_ON(!(which_id & (PROC_EVENT_UID | PROC_EVENT_GID))) to
> > save a cmp?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chase
>
> I think the compiler is capable of making such optimizations. I also
> think what I have now is clearer to anyone skimming the code.
Can the compiler test that (which_id != PROC_EVENT_UID) && (which_id !=
PROC_EVENT_GID) merely by masking? Since they're bits, one mask testing both
could technically match both (true result), which would not happen in the !=
case (false result). It is a small point though.
> Cheers,
> -Matt Helsley
Thanks,
Chase
-
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]
