[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0804280953570.3119@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: simplify generic bit finding functions
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > How about making the optimization controlled by a config switch so
> > > arch maintainers can decide whether they want to enable the constant
> > > optimization or unconditionally call the lib function ?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > This is just making that damn header line look worse and worse.
> >
> > Is there a _reason_ to optimize this stupid function this way?
>
> On architectures which have a find bit instruction we can replace the
> call to the library function by a single instruction when the size of
> the bitmap is less/equal bits per long and when the bitnr is a
> constant.
That's not what I asked.
I asked whether there is a *reason* to optimize this and cause all these
stupid problems.
Is there a real hot path anywhere that actually uses this and depends on
it?
Linus
--
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