> > The first is true only if bit 14 is set.
> > The second is true if either bit 13 or 14 is set.
> > Togather they test for two bits.
> > The first test is exclusive to bit 14
> > The second test is inclusive of bits 13 and 14.
> Andre, please read through that code again, and through your reply.
> It seems to me that Poszar is absolutely right, and your reply is
> (once again) just saying "there's lots of confusion out there, so
> my code has to be confused too". Or do your &s and &&s behave
> differently from ours?
Well, the code looks weird. However, it doesn't behave the same when
CONFIG_IDEDMA_IVB is enabled or not. If it is not, normal case, it's
(drive->id->hw_config & 0x6000)
If CONFIG_IDEDMA_IVB is enabled, it boils down to:
(drive->id->hw_config & 0x4000)
because the second bit test includes the earlier test already only
loosening it. Because of that, it's superfluous. And the code relies on
the compiler to optimize it out.
If written like:
#define IDE_UDMA_MASK 0x4000
#define IDE_UDMA_MASK 0x6000
#endif /* CONFIG_IDEDMA_IVB */
byte eighty_ninty_three (ide_drive_t *drive)
return HWIF(drive)->udma_four &&
(drive->id->hw_config & IDE_UDMA_MASK);
it'd be probably somewhat clearer.
-- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/