2015-01-18 19:26, Doherty, Declan: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > 2015-01-16 15:10, Declan Doherty: > > > In commit 2fc8d6d the behaviour of function rte_is_power_of_2 was > > > changed to not return true for 0. memzone_reserve_aligned_thread_unsafe > > > and rte_malloc_socket both make the assumption that for align = 0 > > > !rte_is_power_of_2(align) will return false. This patch adds a check > > > that align parameter is non-zero before doing the power of 2 check > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Declan Doherty <declan.doherty at intel.com> > > [...] > > > - if (!rte_is_power_of_2(align)) { > > > + if (align ? !rte_is_power_of_2(align) : 0) { > > [...] > > > - if (size == 0 || !rte_is_power_of_2(align)) > > > + if (size == 0 || align ? !rte_is_power_of_2(align) : 0)
There is an operator precedence bug here. Parens are needed after ||. > > I don't understand why you write "align ? !rte_is_power_of_2(align) : 0" > > instead of the more readable "align && !rte_is_power_of_2(align)" ? > > > > Pablo acked it so I guess there is something obvious I'm missing. > > No there's nothing you're missing, this is just the way I saw the logic, if > align is none > zero, then test the power of 2 condition otherwise return 0. I have no > problem with > your suggestion in you prefer that, at the end of the day the logic test > works out equivalent. So I change to the simpler && form and I add parentheses after || to correctly check size==0. Applied with above changes. Thanks -- Thomas
