On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:28:03 +0200 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
| 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).
Exactly what I would suggest, based on a few days of doing these.
Maintains the readability of the code much better than the other
change did...
--
~Randy
