Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:33:36 +0300 From: Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru> To: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> Cc: "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org>, Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com> Subject: Re: RFC: small syscons and kbd patch Message-ID: <XyF%2B8oK9MN%2BR7Vvh5BW2XWkYOoE@yY%2BfOhC1VHEMJMRMqdV4xmT5mXM> In-Reply-To: <7d6fde3d0812040324y3bf0901cy1f4a6d961362c314@mail.gmail.com> References: <bb4a86c70812021701i621fdcfjb6a58a7f5cf781d5@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d0812040324y3bf0901cy1f4a6d961362c314@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--OrT4iOlIQZp3kw4S
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Garrett, good day.
Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 03:24:28AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Maksim Yevmenkin
> Why are you double and triple negating on this line?
> + return (atomic_cmpset_acq_int(&kbd->kb_locked, !!!on, !!on));
Double negation is easy -- !!N =3D 1 for int N !=3D 0, so it is the way to
turn N !=3D 0 to one. Triple negation? I am out of guesses, because it
seems redundant to me: !0 =3D 1, !5 =3D 0, so adding another two negations
is seem to be worthless.
--=20
Eygene
_ ___ _.--. #
\`.|\..----...-'` `-._.-'_.-'` # Remember that it is hard
/ ' ` , __.--' # to read the on-line manual =20
)/' _/ \ `-_, / # while single-stepping the kernel.
`-'" `"\_ ,_.-;_.-\_ ', fsc/as #
_.-'_./ {_.' ; / # -- FreeBSD Developers handbook=20
{_.-``-' {_/ #
--OrT4iOlIQZp3kw4S
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkk3wBAACgkQthUKNsbL7YjMEACeIaOZ3fxrLIysu8d6X+tDfPX1
+vsAnjQaOLa+UHKgWI+shaKzTWJahzDB
=s0Ov
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--OrT4iOlIQZp3kw4S--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XyF%2B8oK9MN%2BR7Vvh5BW2XWkYOoE>