lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 03/11] Task watchers: Refactor process events
Date
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 20:11, Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 19:43 -0500, Chase Venters wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 June 2006 18:54, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > > + WARN_ON((which_id != PROC_EVENT_UID) && (which_id !=
> > > PROC_EVENT_GID)); }
> >
> > How about WARN_ON(!(which_id & (PROC_EVENT_UID | PROC_EVENT_GID))) to
> > save a cmp?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chase
>
> I think the compiler is capable of making such optimizations. I also
> think what I have now is clearer to anyone skimming the code.

Can the compiler test that (which_id != PROC_EVENT_UID) && (which_id !=
PROC_EVENT_GID) merely by masking? Since they're bits, one mask testing both
could technically match both (true result), which would not happen in the !=
case (false result). It is a small point though.

> Cheers,
> -Matt Helsley

Thanks,
Chase
-
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: 2006-06-14 10:12    [W:0.040 / U:3.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site