Hello *,
I am not sure to have perfectly understand all subtle details of likely() &
unlikely() macros but I think there's some brace at the bad place in following
chunk:
--- arch/parisc/lib/memcpy.c.Orig 2007-10-18 15:27:30.000000000 +0000
+++ arch/parisc/lib/memcpy.c 2008-01-03 10:17:52.000000000 +0000
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@
/* Check alignment */
t1 = (src ^ dst);
- if (unlikely(t1 & (sizeof(double)-1)))
+ if (unlikely(t1 & (sizeof(double) - 1)))
goto unaligned_copy;
/* src and dst have same alignment. */
@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@
unaligned_copy:
/* possibly we are aligned on a word, but not on a double... */
- if (likely(t1 & (sizeof(unsigned int)-1)) == 0) {
+ if (likely((t1 & (sizeof(unsigned int) - 1)) == 0)) {
t2 = src & (sizeof(unsigned int) - 1);
if (unlikely(t2 != 0)) {
=== <> ===
First hunk is just to add some whitespace?
Otoh for the second hunk, my reading of the original stuff was that:
> likely(t1 & (sizeof(unsigned int)-1))
i.e. likely's macro embraced only "t1 & (sizeof(unsigned int)-1)" in place of
"(t1 & (sizeof(unsigned int)-1)) == 0".
What's your opinion?
Tia,
r.
---
Scarlet One, ADSL 6 Mbps + Telephone, from EUR 29,95...
http://www.scarlet.be/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
