On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > I found 8 occurrences with the following Coccinelle semantic match: > > > > @@ expression n; @@ > > > > * (n & (n-1)) == 0 > > > > > > The most unpleasant was: > > > > (!(((fp)->ipend & ~0x30) & (((fp)->ipend & ~0x30) - 1))) > > > > in the file arch/blackfin/kernel/traps.c. > > > > At least some of them seemed to have comments nearby that suggested > > that searching for a single 1-bit was indeed the goal. I haven't > > looked at all of them, though. > > behold, the power of shell and REs, which searches for four > variations of that test: Actually, it seems that it was specifying == 0 that was not really necessary. Perhaps the possibility of parentheses is useful too. With the following semantic patch, I find 93 occurrences. @@ expression n; @@ * (n) & ((n)-1) That could indeed be worth doing something about, if they are indeed all representing a check for a single bit. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
