Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote on 21.05.2008 12:04:26:
quoted text
> > +static inline int addr_within_len(const void *addr, const void 
*start,
quoted text
> > +              size_t len)
> > +{
> > +   return ((unsigned long) addr >= (unsigned long) start) &&
> > +          ((unsigned long) addr < ((unsigned long) start + len));
> > +}
> 
> might be my braindamage, but I'd have written it like:
> 
> static inline int 
> addr_within_len(const void *addr, const void *start, size_t len)
> {
>    return (unsigned long)addr - (unsigned long)start < len;
> }

Definitely another way to put it. In my opinion the intention of the
implementation is more easily understood though when spelling it out
as (a>=b) && (a<c).

quoted text
> static inline int
> addr_within(const void *add, const void *start, const void *end)
> {
>    return addr_within_len(addr, start, 
>          (unsigned long)end - (unsigned long)start);
> }

For empty ranges (start > end), this produces different (less expected)
results than the previous version.


Regards,
  Peter
--
unsubscribe notice
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/