Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752269Ab1BPPhx (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:37:53 -0500 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:39719 "EHLO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751482Ab1BPPhv (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:37:51 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: J+DoPjkOorzIRw8Hf1HwVBqBTcwbNyu9v5eLErTKCU7M 1297870670 Message-ID: <4D5BEF7E.4010409@ladisch.de> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:38:38 +0100 From: Clemens Ladisch User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guenter Roeck CC: Jean Delvare , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org" Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH 3/3] hwmon: (jc42) do not allow writing to locked registers References: <4D5BCA87.7010204@ladisch.de> <4D5BCAEE.6030502@ladisch.de> <20110216145049.GC13872@ericsson.com> <4D5BE927.7000306@ladisch.de> <20110216152028.GA14199@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <20110216152028.GA14199@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1303 Lines: 31 Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:11:35AM -0500, Clemens Ladisch wrote: > > Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 08:02:38AM -0500, Clemens Ladisch wrote: > > > > + readonly = config & JC42_CFG_TCRIT_LOCK; > > > > > > You are assigning a non-bool to a bool. I can see that recent C compilers > > > do the right thing, but I am not sure if that is always the case. > > > So I would prefer > > > readonly = !!(config & JC42_CFG_TCRIT_LOCK); > > > > > > Same for the assignments below. I can make that change if you are ok with it. > > > > I cannot imagine how a compiler could get this wrong even if it tried > > to, but if you think so, go ahead. :) > > I don't know. Maybe I am just paranoid. Using !! is how I usually see it done. Usually, !! is used to convert non-zero to the _integer_ 1. With a compiler that implements bool, this conversion is already implied. On older compilers, someone might be tempted to do "#define bool int", but this is not an issue with the compilers required by Linux. Regards, Clemens -- 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/