From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [PATCH resend 2/2] I2C: sis630: Cleaning and cosmetics Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 13:53:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20130104135325.58d2aec0@endymion.delvare> References: <1346204115-30293-1-git-send-email-amaury.decreme@gmail.com> <1346204115-30293-3-git-send-email-amaury.decreme@gmail.com> <20121004172939.387eb8d1@endymion.delvare> <20130104114400.GB31752@gentoo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130104114400.GB31752@gentoo> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Amaury =?ISO-8859-1?B?RGVjcuptZQ==?= Cc: nelson-bExrPSV3DA0@public.gmane.org, mhoffman-xQSgfq/1h4JiLUuM0BA3LQ@public.gmane.org, amalysh-S0/GAf8tV78@public.gmane.org, linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Hi Amaury, On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 12:44:00 +0100, Amaury Decr=EAme wrote: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 05:29:39PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > This is a mask, would be good to make it visible in the name. OTOH = the > > masking is a no-op in practice so I'm not sure it's worth defining. >=20 > I removed it. I understand that byte mask shouldn't be keeped but bit= mask is ok. > Is it the right logic ? No, my point is that masking operations which will always resolve to no-ops by construct should be avoided. The compiler may not always be able to optimize these out. This hold for both single and multi-bit masking. --=20 Jean Delvare