Re: Janitor-Question: use __set_bit instead of |=

[walter harms <wharms@bfs.de>]

Am 30.05.2011 23:23, schrieb Peter Hüwe:
> Hi Janitors, staging-list
> 
> what is your opinion on using set_bit instead of using |= to set a bit?
> Is it worth the effort to convert  existing |= to set_bit?
> 
> __set_bit
> pro:
> - often implemented in optimized assembly (e.g. for x86)
> - intention might be clearer
> - less error prone
> - "they are the only portable way to set a specific bit"
> according to  Robert Love's Linux Kernel Development third edition, p.183
> 
> cons:
> uses unsigned longs
> 
> 
> |> pro:
> - standard C
> - let's the compiler decide
> - no warnings on chars, shorts, ints
> 
> 

Personaly i do not like it, but to be fair
|= must not be obvious but it depends on the situation.

It is std C and the compiler should handle it.

re,
 wh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html