|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 4/4] bitmaps/bitops: Clarify tests for small constant size.
>>> On 27.02.14 at 15:27, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> No semantic changes, just makes the control flow a bit clearer.
>
> I was looking at this bcause the (-!__builtin_constant_p(x) | x__)
> formula is too clever for Coverity, but in fact it always takes me a
> minute or two to understand it too. :)
>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>
Well, I'm not really happy to see this changed into more text
(even if fewer lines), because to me that's part of what makes
such macros badly readable, but ...
> xen/include/asm-x86/bitops.h | 62
> ++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> xen/include/xen/bitmap.h | 30 ++++++++++++---------
> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
... at least the overall change is not growing the number of
lines.
Nevertheless a small consistency nit:
> +#define find_next_bit(addr, size, off) ({ \
> + unsigned int r__; \
> + const unsigned long *a__ = (addr); \
> + unsigned int s__ = (size); \
> + unsigned int o__ = (off); \
> + if ( __builtin_constant_p(size) && s__ == 0 ) \
Using == 0 here, ...
> + r__ = s__; \
> + else if ( __builtin_constant_p(size) && s__ <= BITS_PER_LONG ) \
> + r__ = o__ + __scanbit(*(const unsigned long *)(a__) >> o__, s__); \
> + else if ( __builtin_constant_p(off) && !o__ ) \
... but using ! here. I'd prefer the latter everywhere, but I'd also
be fine with you choosing the former consistently. (Same of course
again further down.)
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |