![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hey... WRT all these test_bit()/set_bit() cleanups. I am a bit nervous about these changes that are coming in... When I see types change from "u8" or "u32" to "long" just to make <foo>_bit() work, that really makes me think that cleanup is wrong. I haven't looked closely at the recent set_bit() cleanups yet, but I am willing to bet that at least some of them are wrongly changing the size of a variable's type. My preference would be to _eliminate_ the set_bit call and simply open-code the bitop, i.e. set_bit(bitnum, &foo); become foo |= (1 << bitnum); Really, for each cleanup, you need to look hard at the change and see if <foo>_bit() is being used for atomicity reasons or simply programmer preference. (and other issues like endian issues) The latter can easily be changed to open-coding. Disclaimer, my argument is null and void if each change has been closely studied and is really correct :) However I'm guessing we all are only glancing at the changes :) Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||