On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Steven Rostedt writes: > > > Thanks to Paul Mackennas for pointing out the mistakes of my original > > Mackerras
Heh, I have two reasons for that typo. 1) I reference Paul McKenney a lot, and my fingers are programmed. 2) I type with the dvorak layout, and the 'r' is just above the 'n'. qwerty 'o' == dvorak 'r' qwerty 'l' == dvorak 'n' ;-) > > > +static int test_24bit_addr(unsigned long ip, unsigned long addr) > > +{ > > + long diff; > > + > > + /* > > + * Can we get to addr from ip in 24 bits? > > + * (26 really, since we mulitply by 4 for 4 byte alignment) > > + */ > > + diff = addr - ip; > > + > > + /* > > + * Return true if diff is less than 1 << 25 > > + * and greater than -1 << 26. > > + */ > > + return (diff < (1 << 25)) && (diff > (-1 << 26)); > > I think this still isn't right, and the comment is one of those ones > that is only useful to people who can't read C, as it's just a > transliteration of the code. Argh!!! That must be a misfold. I fixed that code. The final version ad the same shift for both. > > The comment should say something like "Return true if diff can be > represented as a 26-bit twos-complement binary number" and the second > part of the test should be (diff >= (-1 << 25)). However, since you > define a test_offset() function in patch 4/5 that does the same test > but using only one comparison instead of two, why don't you just say: > > return !test_offset(diff); > > (having first moved test_offset() before test_24bit_addr)? OK, will fix. Thanks. Hmm, maybe I ment to do that, and miss the patch :-/ -- Steve _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev