On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Where in the patch do you see the comment? Or were you talking about > the change log? The original patch did have a comment, an it was > dropped, that's what I thought you were talking about. Sorry yes the changelog. > Actually, it is equivalent, but I do see a issue with my patch. > > val &= val & (val - 1); > > is the same as the more reasonable: > > val &= val - 1; > > I think I meant to replace &= with = :-/ > > > > > or more compact > > > > unsigned int val = __this_cpu_read(current_context); > > > > __this_cpu_write(current_context, val & (val - 1)); > > Maybe I'll just use your compact version. Hmmm... It could even be more compact __this_cpu_and(current_context, __this_cpu_read(current_context) - 1); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html