On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 11:10 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 10/02/2015 11:03 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > That's a good idea, I think. > > It's a fallout from a cleanup patch: > > http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-09/msg03184.html > > > One question, can we introduce a __test_bit() macro/inline > > function, > > like Jan did with __set_bit? > > In the thread mentioned above you'll find a discussion about exactly > this idea between Jan and me. > Ah, I see. Sorry, I missed it. > > I've quickly-&-dirtily tested this: > > > > #define __test_bit(nr, addr) ({ \ > > unsigned _flags = 1 << nr; \ > > addr & _flags; \ > > }) > > > > and the result (I've checked a couple of cases) seems the same to > > me. > > The problem is the limited scope where this scheme is really working > and > is a better solution at the same time (nr must be a constant less > than > the numbers of bits of *addr). > Right, so we could only use __test_bit() in a subset of the cases, i.e., we won't gain that much more consistency... I see it now. Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
