`On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:>> >> Why the qualifier? Zero *is* not a power of 2, is it?>> No, it is not:>> 	In[1]:= Solve[2^n == 0, n]>> 	Out[1]= {}>> So says Mathematica5.oooookay, that's kind of like taking a sandblaster to a soup cracker.seriously, though, there is the potential of breaking something withthis change since you can see how there is some inconsistency in howit's done *now* just for powerpc which, in some places, defines itsown versions of this:./arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c:	#define is_power_of_2(x) ((x) != 0 && (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0))./arch/ppc/syslib/ppc85xx_rio.c:	#define is_power_of_2(x) (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0)./arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c:	#define is_power_of_2(x) ((x) != 0 && (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0))note how the first and third macros *won't* consider zero a power oftwo, while the second one *will*.  hence the need for a singlestandard for all of this, just to play it safe.rdayp.s.  in case you missed it, that was a not-so-subtle plea to pleasejust apply this patch so we can move on.-- ========================================================================Robert P. J. DayLinux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel PedantryWaterloo, Ontario, CANADAhttp://www.fsdev.dreamhosters.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page========================================================================-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.orgMore majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlPlease read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/`