[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080314214205.GW2522@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:42:05 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: merge the simple bitops and move them to bitops.h
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:33:29PM +0100, Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
> static inline int fls64(__u64 x)
> {
> __u32 h = x >> 32;
> if (h)
> return fls(h) + 32;
> return fls(x);
> }
>
> I just wanted to move the 64-bit version to that header, with some
> ifdefs to select the right one.
That's still far more than the single 64bit instruction fls64 uses
> In fact I just found out that it only had an effect for 64 bit
> machines. Still, setting it unconditionally feels wrong.
I don't think your feeling is correct.
>
> > > x86_64 has a mysterious inline function set_bit_string, which is
> > > only used by pci-calgary_64.c and pci-gart_64.c. Not sure what to
> > > do with it.
> >
> > It's generic and could really live in linux/bitops.h
>
> It could. But it is a trivial (slow?) implementation. Probably fine
It is this way because the callers in 95+% of all cases only
set a single bit. For that case it is not slow.
-Andi
--
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