On Thursday June 1, eyal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Alex Davis wrote:
> >>short swap16(short in)
> >>{
> >> int i;
> >> short out=0;
> >> for (i=0; i<4; i++) {
> >> out = out<<8 | (in&255);
> >> in = in >> 8;
> >> }
> >> return out;
> >>}
> >
> > Shouldn't that be "for (i=0; i<2; i++) {..." ?
Well, yes... if you want the code to actually work, I guess that might
be an improvement....
>
> In which case, do we really need this complexity rather than
> a clear swap, e.g.
> return (short)(((in&0x0ff)<<8) | ((in>>8)&0x0ff))
What I like about the above is that the difference between swap16,
swap32 and swap64 is just one number. In this case I think clarity
and maintainability are much more important than efficiency.
Thanks for the comment,
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
