On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 18:27 +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> Searching for the member of an array closest to 'x' is
> duplicated in several places.
[]
> diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
[]
> @@ -116,6 +116,29 @@
> } \
> )
>
> +#define __find_closest(x, a, as, op)( \
> +{ \
> + typeof(as) _i, _as = (as) - 1; \
> + typeof(x) _x = (x); \
> + typeof(*a) *_a = (a); \
> + for (_i = 0; _i < _as; _i++) { \
> + if (_x op DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(_a[_i] + _a[_i + 1], 2)) \
> + break; \
> + } \
> + (_i); \
> +} \
> +)
Please use more descriptive variable names.
Most kernel statement expression macros consolidate
the "({" and "})" uses on single lines
#define sem(args) {( \
etc... \
)}
> +
> +/*
> + * Given an array 'a' (sorted in ascending order) of size 'as' return
> + * the index of the element in that array closest to 'x'.
> + */
It'd be nice to use kernel-doc comments here.
> +#define find_closest(x, a, as) __find_closest(x, a, as, <=)
> +/*
> + * Similar to find_closest(), but 'a' is expected to be sorted
> + * in descending order.
> + */
And here.
> +#define find_closest_desc(x, a, as) __find_closest(x, a, as, >)
Shouldn't find_closest and find_closest_dest use
equivalent comparison?
>= ?
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
