On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 23:44:24 +0300 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 04:15:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 23:06:19 +0300 > > Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > * Simply compare -1 with 0, > > > * Drop unnecessary parenthesis sets > > > > > > New macro leaves pointer as "unsigned type" but gives a warning, > > > which should be fine because asking whether a pointer is signed is > > > strange question. > > > > > > I'm not sure what's going on in the i915 driver, it is shipping kernel > > > pointers to userspace. > > > > This tells us what the patch does, not why. > > Check the subject line. I don't see how it's simpler. -#define is_signed_type(type) (((type)(-1)) < (type)1) +#define is_signed_type(type) ((type)-1 < 0) Requires more rational that "make it simpler". Rewriting futex or tty layer code would be something I would love to see, but just replacing "(type)1" with "0" isn't worth the churn. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
