Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752228Ab0AZB07 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:26:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751749Ab0AZB07 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:26:59 -0500 Received: from mail-yx0-f187.google.com ([209.85.210.187]:52150 "EHLO mail-yx0-f187.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750773Ab0AZB06 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:26:58 -0500 Message-ID: <4B5E44DD.9090305@cnu.edu> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:26:53 -0500 From: James Kosin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Perches , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/24] drivers/block/floppy.c: Add function is_ready_state References: <4B5B32AF.1010509@cox.net> <1264279618.30778.34.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> In-Reply-To: <1264279618.30778.34.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1722 Lines: 54 On 1/23/2010 3:46 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 12:32 -0500, James Kosin wrote: > >> On 1/22/2010 12:00 AM, Joe Perches wrote: >> >>> Used a couple of times, might simplify the code a bit. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches >>> --- >>> drivers/block/floppy.c | 19 +++++++++++++++---- >>> 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/block/floppy.c b/drivers/block/floppy.c >>> index 2f6ed78..fd56b26 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/block/floppy.c >>> +++ b/drivers/block/floppy.c >>> @@ -782,6 +782,12 @@ static inline int is_selected(int dor, int unit) >>> return ((dor& (0x10<< unit))&& (dor& 3) == unit); >>> } >>> >>> +static bool is_ready_state(int status) >>> +{ >>> + int state = status& (STATUS_READY | STATUS_DIR | STATUS_DMA); >>> + return state == STATUS_READY; >>> +} >>> + >>> >> This should probably be simplified to: >> >> static bool is_ready_state(int status) >> { >> return ((state& STATUS_READY) == STATUS_READY); >> } >> > Certainly not. > That wouldn't be the same code. > > include/linux/fdreg.h:#define STATUS_DMA 0x20 /* 0- DMA mode */ > include/linux/fdreg.h:#define STATUS_DIR 0x40 /* 0- cpu->fdc */ > include/linux/fdreg.h:#define STATUS_READY 0x80 /* Data reg ready */ > > > Read the code.... It simplifies what is already there. The two other status flags make no difference in the test for equality with STATUS_READY. James -- 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/