On 11 December 2011 19:30, Christoffer Dall <c.dall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Peter Maydell > <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Removing the mask would be wrong since the irq field here >> is encoding both cpu number and irq-vs-fiq. The default is >> just an unreachable condition. (Why are we using % here >> rather than the obvious bit operation, incidentally?) >> > right, I will remove the default case. > > I highly doubt that the difference in using a bitop will be measurably > more efficient, but if you feel strongly about it, I can change it to > a shift and bitwise and, which I assume is what you mean by the > obvious bit operation? I think my CS background speaks for using %, > but whatever. Certainly the compiler ought to be able to figure out the two are the same thing; I just think "irq & 1" is more readable than "irq % 2" (because it's being clear that it's treating the variable as a pile of bits rather than an integer). This is bikeshedding rather, though, and style issues in kernel code are a matter for the kernel folk. So you can ignore me :-) -- PMM -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
