Am 30.05.2011 23:23, schrieb Peter Hüwe: > Hi Janitors, staging-list > > what is your opinion on using set_bit instead of using |= to set a bit? > Is it worth the effort to convert existing |= to set_bit? > > __set_bit > pro: > - often implemented in optimized assembly (e.g. for x86) > - intention might be clearer > - less error prone > - "they are the only portable way to set a specific bit" > according to Robert Love's Linux Kernel Development third edition, p.183 > > cons: > uses unsigned longs > > > |= > pro: > - standard C > - let's the compiler decide > - no warnings on chars, shorts, ints > > Personaly i do not like it, but to be fair |= must not be obvious but it depends on the situation. It is std C and the compiler should handle it. re, wh -- 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
