On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Aya Mahfouz wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:40:25PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:06:28AM +0200, Aya Mahfouz wrote:
> > > Replaces IS_PO2 by is_power_of_2. IS_PO2 is used with several debug
> > > macros. In this case, it is CDEBUG. Note that the replacement changes
> > > the types involved, because the parameter of IS_PO2 is of type long long
> > > and the return type is int, while the parameter of is_power_of_2 is of
> > > type long and the return type is bool. This, however, has no impact,
> > > because the actual argument is always of type int, and the return value
> > > is always used as a boolean.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Aya Mahfouz <mahfouz.saif.elyazal@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c | 4 +++-
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
> > > index 6f4c7d4..4b5e79a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
> > > @@ -109,6 +109,8 @@
> > >
> > > #include "../../include/linux/libcfs/libcfs.h"
> > > #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> > > +#include <linux/log2.h>
> > > +
> > >
> > > #if CFS_HASH_DEBUG_LEVEL >= CFS_HASH_DEBUG_1
> > > static unsigned int warn_on_depth = 8;
> > > @@ -1785,7 +1787,7 @@ cfs_hash_rehash_cancel_locked(struct cfs_hash *hs)
> > > for (i = 2; cfs_hash_is_rehashing(hs); i++) {
> > > cfs_hash_unlock(hs, 1);
> > > /* raise console warning while waiting too long */
> > > - CDEBUG(IS_PO2(i >> 3) ? D_WARNING : D_INFO,
> > > + CDEBUG(is_power_of_2(i >> 3) ? D_WARNING : D_INFO,
> >
> > is_power_of_2() works differently than IS_PO2(), are you _sure_ that the
> > value here can not be 0? If so, this will do something different :(
> >
>
> This is actually an interesting point to raise. __is_po2 the inline
> function used by IS_PO2 should actually check if the number is greater
> than 0. The current implementation of __is_po2 would allow the
> comparison of 0 with 2^(size of unsigned long long)-1. Is this correct?
> Or is this something intentional?
What is the actual result in each case?
julia
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
