>-----Original Message----- >From: Jarek Poplawski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:32 PM >To: Andrew Morton >Cc: Pallipadi, Venkatesh; [email protected]; Oleg Nesterov >Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] timer: parenthesis fix in >tbase_get_deferrable() etc. > >On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:33:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Tue, 8 May 2007 12:33:48 +0200 >> Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >> > --- >> > >> > diff -Nurp 2.6.21-mm1-/kernel/timer.c 2.6.21-mm1/kernel/timer.c >> > --- 2.6.21-mm1-/kernel/timer.c 2007-05-08 >11:54:48.000000000 +0200 >> > +++ 2.6.21-mm1/kernel/timer.c 2007-05-08 >12:05:11.000000000 +0200 >> > @@ -92,24 +92,24 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(tvec_base_t *, tve >> > /* Functions below help us manage 'deferrable' flag */ >> > static inline unsigned int tbase_get_deferrable(tvec_base_t *base) >> > { >> > - return ((unsigned int)(unsigned long)base & >TBASE_DEFERRABLE_FLAG); >> > + return (unsigned int)((unsigned long)base & >TBASE_DEFERRABLE_FLAG); >> > } >... >> The change makes sense, but does it actually "fix" anything? >> > >Yes - this first place fixes logical error, so it's a sin >- even if not punishable in practice. (It's also unnecessary >test for long to int conversion.) >
I am sorry, I don't understand. What is the logical error in the first one? Actually, your change makes it different from what was originally indended. Original intention was to type convert base to a 32 bit value and bitwise& with FLAG. Even though compiler may optimize both the above to same code, I don't see what is the error. Thanks, Venki - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
