Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:02:52 -0700 | From | jw schultz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][TRIVIAL] Bugzilla bug # 322 - double logical operator drivers/char/sx.c |
| |
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 04:20:37AM -0400, Jeff Sipek wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Wednesday 06 August 2003 20:35, Timothy Miller wrote: > > Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: > > > Just a simple fix to make the statements more readable. (instead of > > > "i < TIMEOUT > 0" the statement is divided into two, joined by &&.) > > > > Can you really DO (x < y > z) and have it work as an anded pair of > > comparisons? Maybe this is an addition to C that I am not aware of. > > > > I would expect (x < y > z) to be equivalent to ((x < y) > z). > > Odd, this has been in the kernel ever since Linus started using BK. I didn't > check pre-BK. I wonder what the author intended to say. (I believe in the > ((a<b) && (b>c)) theory.)
I've got an old system with 2.2.10 and took a look. It appears as though the form of the loop in may of 1999 was
for(delay = SX_CCR_TIMEOUT; delay; delay--)
so my guess is that the changes were made around the constant to minimise typing and progressed something like so:
for(delay = SX_CCR_TIMEOUT; delay; delay--) for(delay = SX_CCR_TIMEOUT; delay > 0; delay--) for(delay = 0; delay < SX_CCR_TIMEOUT > 0; delay++)
with name changes somewhere in the mix. So there was never any intent to have a double test. Besides comparing a constant with another constant wouldn't make much sense.
-- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws
Remember Cernan and Schmitt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |