On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:32:08PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 08:14:00PM +0100, viro at parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 12:10:04PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > @@ -170,8 +170,11 @@
> > > static int DIV_TO_REG(int val)
> > > {
> > > int answer = 0;
> > > - while ((val >>= 1))
> > > + val >>= 1;
> > > + while (val) {
> > > answer++;
> > > + val >>= 1;
> > > + }
> > > return answer;
> >
> > That's less readable than the original...
>
> Hm, so we should ignore the sparse warning about the original then?
What about:
while ((val >>= 1) != 0) {
...
Readable and sparse clean (I suppose).
Sam
