[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH][TRIVIAL] Bugzilla bug # 322 - double logical operator drivers/char/sx.c
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:20:37AM -0400, Jeff Sipek wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On Wednesday 06 August 2003 20:35, Timothy Miller wrote:
> > Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> > > Just a simple fix to make the statements more readable. (instead of
> > > "i < TIMEOUT > 0" the statement is divided into two, joined by &&.)
> >
> > Can you really DO (x < y > z) and have it work as an anded pair of
> > comparisons? Maybe this is an addition to C that I am not aware of.
> >
> > I would expect (x < y > z) to be equivalent to ((x < y) > z).
> Odd, this has been in the kernel ever since Linus started using BK. I didn't
> check pre-BK. I wonder what the author intended to say. (I believe in the
> ((a<b) && (b>c)) theory.)

I've got an old system with 2.2.10 and took a look. It
appears as though the form of the loop in may of 1999 was

for(delay = SX_CCR_TIMEOUT; delay; delay--)

so my guess is that the changes were made around the
constant to minimise typing and progressed something like so:

for(delay = SX_CCR_TIMEOUT; delay; delay--)
for(delay = SX_CCR_TIMEOUT; delay > 0; delay--)
for(delay = 0; delay < SX_CCR_TIMEOUT > 0; delay++)

with name changes somewhere in the mix. So there was never
any intent to have a double test. Besides comparing a
constant with another constant wouldn't make much sense.

J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address:

Remember Cernan and Schmitt
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 13:47    [W:2.202 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site