[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071025093159.3ea69d03.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:31:59 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2] bitops kernel-doc: inline instead of macro
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:00:19 +1000 Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 October 2007 15:09, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
> >
> > Can we expand this macro definition, or should I look for a way to
> > fool^W teach kernel-doc about this?
> >
> > scripts/kernel-doc says:
> > Error(linux-2.6.24-rc1//include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188): cannot understand
> > prototype: 'test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit '
>
> Actually, it probably looks a bit nicer like this anyway. If you grep
> for it, then you can actually see the parameters...
>
> On third thoughts, an inline function might be the best thing to do,
> and also avoid setting a bad example. What do you think?
---
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Use duplicated inline functions for test_and_set_bit_lock() on x86
instead of #define macros, thus avoiding a bad example. This allows
kernel-doc to run cleanly instead of terminating with an error:
Error(linux-2.6.24-rc1//include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188): cannot understand prototype: 'test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit '
Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
---
include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h | 13 +++++++++++--
include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h | 13 +++++++++++--
2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- linux-2.6.24-rc1.orig/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h
+++ linux-2.6.24-rc1/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h
@@ -183,9 +183,18 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(int n
* @nr: Bit to set
* @addr: Address to count from
*
- * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86
+ * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86.
*/
-#define test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit
+static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long * addr)
+{
+ int oldbit;
+
+ __asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX
+ "btsl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0"
+ :"=r" (oldbit),"+m" (ADDR)
+ :"Ir" (nr) : "memory");
+ return oldbit;
+}
/**
* __test_and_set_bit - Set a bit and return its old value
--- linux-2.6.24-rc1.orig/include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h
+++ linux-2.6.24-rc1/include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h
@@ -173,9 +173,18 @@ static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit(i
* @nr: Bit to set
* @addr: Address to count from
*
- * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86
+ * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86.
*/
-#define test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit
+static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile void * addr)
+{
+ int oldbit;
+
+ __asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX
+ "btsl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0"
+ :"=r" (oldbit),ADDR
+ :"dIr" (nr) : "memory");
+ return oldbit;
+}
/**
* __test_and_set_bit - Set a bit and return its old value
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists