[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: page_launder() bug
    At 12:07 AM +0200 2001-05-07, BERECZ Szabolcs wrote:
    >On Sun, 6 May 2001, Jonathan Morton wrote:
    > > >- page_count(page) == (1 + !!page->buffers));
    >> Two inversions in a row? I'd like to see that made more explicit,
    >> otherwise it looks like a bug to me. Of course, if it IS a bug...
    >it's not a bug.
    >if page->buffers is zero, than the page_count(page) is 1, and if
    >page->buffers is other than zero, page_count(page) is 2.
    >so it checks if page is really used by something.
    >maybe this last line is not true, but the !!page->buffers is not a bug.

    There's something to be said for expressing it a little more clearly:

    page_count(page) == (page->buffers ? 2 : 1);

    (sorry, I don't remember the relative precedence of == and ?:)
    /Jonathan Lundell.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.019 / U:28.336 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site