Re: [RFC PATCH 23/35] Increase x86 interrupt vector range

[Keir Fraser]

On 13 May 2006, at 18:44, Chuck Ebbert wrote:

> AFAIC this could go in anytime.  It's simple, self-contained and makes
> sense even without Xen.
>
> One minor nit: the IRQ value isn't negated, it's complemented.  The
> comments need to be fixed.

If we really want it disambiguated then we should call it something 
like 'bitwise-negated' or 'ones-complemented'. 'Complemented' alone is 
worse than 'negated' imo, since negation is at least the usual name for 
the tilde operator in C while complementation is an ambiguous term 
unless you know the base/radix.

 -- Keir

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/