On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote:

Steven Rostedt writes:

quoted

Thanks to Paul Mackennas for pointing out the mistakes of my original

Mackerras

Heh, I have two reasons for that typo.

 1) I reference Paul McKenney a lot, and my fingers are programmed.
 2) I type with the dvorak layout, and the 'r' is just above the 'n'.
    qwerty 'o' == dvorak 'r'
    qwerty 'l' == dvorak 'n'

;-)

quoted

+static int test_24bit_addr(unsigned long ip, unsigned long addr)
+{
+	long diff;
+
+	/*
+	 * Can we get to addr from ip in 24 bits?
+	 *  (26 really, since we mulitply by 4 for 4 byte alignment)
+	 */
+	diff = addr - ip;
+
+	/*
+	 * Return true if diff is less than 1 << 25
+	 *  and greater than -1 << 26.
+	 */
+	return (diff < (1 << 25)) && (diff > (-1 << 26));

I think this still isn't right, and the comment is one of those ones
that is only useful to people who can't read C, as it's just a
transliteration of the code.

Argh!!! That must be a misfold.  I fixed that code.  The final version 
ad the same shift for both.

The comment should say something like "Return true if diff can be
represented as a 26-bit twos-complement binary number" and the second
part of the test should be (diff >= (-1 << 25)).  However, since you
define a test_offset() function in patch 4/5 that does the same test
but using only one comparison instead of two, why don't you just say:

	return !test_offset(diff);

(having first moved test_offset() before test_24bit_addr)?

OK, will fix. Thanks. Hmm, maybe I ment to do that, and miss the patch :-/

-- Steve