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
-
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/
