lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: page_launder() bug
vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl (Horst von Brand)  wrote on 07.05.01 in <200105071452.f47Eq2jn008611@pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl>:

> "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> said:
> > Jonathan Morton writes:
> > > >- page_count(page) == (1 + !!page->buffers));
> > >
> > > Two inversions in a row?
> >
> > It is the most straightforward way to make a '1' or '0'
> > integer from the NULL state of a pointer.
>
> IMVHO, it is clearer to write:
>
> page_count(page) == 1 + (page->buffers != NULL)
>
> At least, the original poster wouldn't have wondered, and I wouldn't have
> had to think a bit to find out what it meant... If gcc generates worse code
> for this, it should be fixed.

Huh. IMO, that is significantly *less* readable. And incidentally I'd be
less certain that it actually does what you want - it is rather easy to
convince yourself that !! has to do the right thing.

MfG Kai
-
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 12:52    [W:0.114 / U:9.932 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site