On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:10:00PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:02:03PM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> > +static bool cpus_have_hwcap(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap)
> > +{
> > + switch(cap->hwcap_type) {
> > + case CAP_HWCAP:
> > + return !!(elf_hwcap & cap->hwcap);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > + case CAP_COMPAT_HWCAP:
> > + return !!(compat_elf_hwcap & (u32)cap->hwcap);
> > + case CAP_COMPAT_HWCAP2:
> > + return !!(compat_elf_hwcap2 & (u32)cap->hwcap);
> > +#endif
> > + default:
> > + BUG();
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +}
>
> Apart from the multiple returns, you don't really need !! since the
> return type is bool already.
That's wrong. a & b doesn't return 0 or 1, but the bitwise-and result.
http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/bool.html
especially hpa's response.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
