Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750987AbWBJBTn (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:19:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750988AbWBJBTn (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:19:43 -0500 Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:2747 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750985AbWBJBTm (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:19:42 -0500 Message-ID: <43EBEA26.8000709@pobox.com> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:19:34 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo CC: axboe@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: kill not-so-popular simple flag testing macros References: <20060208085728.GA21065@htj.dyndns.org> <43EB8D2C.6020708@pobox.com> <43EBDC70.6050302@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <43EBDC70.6050302@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "srv2.dvmed.net", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Tejun Heo wrote: > The code he was talking about looks like. > > if (rq->flags & (REQ_SOFTBARRIER | REQ_HARDBARRIER) { Yes, I certainly agree you don't want to test the same variable multiple times, if you are just testing bits in the same variable. [...] Content analysis details: (0.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [69.134.188.146 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 507 Lines: 17 Tejun Heo wrote: > The code he was talking about looks like. > > if (rq->flags & (REQ_SOFTBARRIER | REQ_HARDBARRIER) { Yes, I certainly agree you don't want to test the same variable multiple times, if you are just testing bits in the same variable. Jeff - 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/