From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
dhowells@redhat.com, galak@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add "is_power_of_2" checking to log2.h.
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:11:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <466DD696.8080901@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701300938580.24147@CPE00045a9c397f-CM001225dbafb6>
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> seriously, though, there is the potential of breaking something with
> this change since you can see how there is some inconsistency in how
> it's done *now* just for powerpc which, in some places, defines its
> own versions of this:
>
> ./arch/ppc/mm/pgtable.c:
> #define is_power_of_2(x) ((x) != 0 && (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0))
> ./arch/ppc/syslib/ppc85xx_rio.c:
> #define is_power_of_2(x) (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0)
> ./arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable_32.c:
> #define is_power_of_2(x) ((x) != 0 && (((x) & ((x) - 1)) == 0))
>
> note how the first and third macros *won't* consider zero a power of
> two, while the second one *will*. hence the need for a single
> standard for all of this, just to play it safe.
>
I suspect the reason the test for zero was omitted is because the author
didn't want the extra cost (the test for zero needs an extra branch on a
lot of architectures.)
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-11 23:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-30 11:06 [PATCH] Add "is_power_of_2" checking to log2.h Robert P. J. Day
2007-01-30 12:25 ` Nick Piggin
2007-01-30 12:56 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-01-30 14:12 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-01-30 14:45 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-01-30 15:50 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-01-30 16:00 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-06-11 23:11 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2007-01-31 10:13 ` Vegard Nossum
2007-01-31 10:47 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-01-31 1:21 ` Nick Piggin
2007-01-31 7:20 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-02-01 10:41 ` David Howells
2007-02-01 10:43 ` David Howells
2007-02-01 10:49 ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-02-01 12:39 ` Tim Schmielau
2007-02-01 20:17 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2007-02-01 21:55 ` Tim Schmielau
2007-02-20 15:29 ` Mariusz Kozlowski
2007-02-20 15:56 ` Kumar Gala
2007-02-20 16:14 ` Mariusz Kozlowski
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=466DD696.8080901@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=galak@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rpjday@mindspring.com \
/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