Re: [RFC] change non-atomic bitops method

David Howells
2015-02-03T15:15:38Z

Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> Might be a matter of taste, but this check is equivalent to
>
> *p != (*p | mask)
>
> which is what you really want to test for.

I would argue that this is less clear as to what's going on.

David