lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 8 Dec 2002 22:54:00 -0500
FromJeff Garzik <>
Subjectbit testing nervousness...
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