From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@conectiva.com.br>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bit testing nervousness...
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 05:35:56 -0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021209073555.GA17067@conectiva.com.br> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021209035400.GA20470@gtf.org>
Em Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 10:54:00PM -0500, Jeff Garzik escreveu:
> Hey...
>
> WRT all these test_bit()/set_bit() cleanups. I am a bit nervous about
> these changes that are coming in...
lets try to calm you then 8)
> When I see types change from "u8" or "u32" to "long" just to make
> <foo>_bit() work, that really makes me think that cleanup is wrong. I
> haven't looked closely at the recent set_bit() cleanups yet, but I am
> willing to bet that at least some of them are wrongly changing the size
> of a variable's type.
>
> My preference would be to _eliminate_ the set_bit call and simply
> open-code the bitop, i.e.
> set_bit(bitnum, &foo);
> become
> foo |= (1 << bitnum);
I think this can be a good idea, but in some cases, like the set_rx_mode
routines (multicast) it depends on the conversion to long, so those ones
should be dealt with in a different fashion, BTW, I haven't touched those
ones.
> Really, for each cleanup, you need to look hard at the change and
> see if <foo>_bit() is being used for atomicity reasons or simply
> programmer preference. (and other issues like endian issues) The
> latter can easily be changed to open-coding.
>
> Disclaimer, my argument is null and void if each change has been closely
> studied and is really correct :) However I'm guessing we all are only
> glancing at the changes :)
Lets see:
o drivers/atm/ambassador.c (ChangeSet@1.797.108.1)
o drivers/atm/horizon.c (ChangeSet@1.797.108.2)
o drivers/char/sx.c (ChangeSet@1.797.108.3)
o drivers/net/lance.c (ChangeSet@1.831.1.15)
o drivers/net/ni65.c (ChangeSet@1.797.108.8)
o drivers/net/dl2k.c (ChangeSet@1.831.1.34, ChangeSet@1.831.1.32)
o drivers/net/wan/sdla_fr.c (ChangeSet@1.831.1.41)
o include/linux/if_wanpipe_common.h (ChangeSet@1.831.1.42)
only sets/resets/tests a few bits, safe, no code depends on it changing
its size from 32 to 64 bits.
Humm, I was expecting a second type of changes, but I think all are safe,
even on a second glance. :-)
- Arnaldo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-12-09 7:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-09 3:54 bit testing nervousness Jeff Garzik
2002-12-09 7:35 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20021209073555.GA17067@conectiva.com.br \
--to=acme@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox