No optimization. I just thought both 0xffffffff and -1
are ugly.
--- Mikael Pettersson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:02:11 -0700 (PDT), Alex Dubov
> wrote:
> >The exact condition is (irq_status!=0 &&
> >irq_status!=0xffffffff). I think it is not any
> better
> >that what I have.
> >
> >--- Andrey Panin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 208, 07 27, 2006 at 08:34:06PM -0700, Alex
> Dubov
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> What this strange line (in tifm_7xx1_isr
> function)
> >> is supposed to do:
> >>
> >> if(irq_status && (~irq_status))
>
> If you're chasing micro-optimisations, you could
> write
>
> /* if irq_status is not 0 or ~0, do <blah> */
> if (((unsigned)irq_status + 1) >= 2)
>
> which should reduce the number of conditional
> branches
> to a single one. (And drop the cast if irq_status is
> declared as unsigned.)
>
> But for long-term maintenance just spelling out the
> exact
> condition (irq_status != 0 && irq_status != ~0) is
> preferable.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
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]
