[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m3lk05jvw5.fsf@maximus.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:51:06 +0200
From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [bisected] kernel panic 2.6.22 -> 2.6.26-rc9+
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> --- a/include/asm-arm/bitops.h~a
> +++ a/include/asm-arm/bitops.h
> @@ -277,9 +277,16 @@ static inline int constant_fls(int x)
> * the clz instruction for much better code efficiency.
> */
>
> -#define fls(x) \
> +#define __fls(x) \
> ( __builtin_constant_p(x) ? constant_fls(x) : \
> ({ int __r; asm("clz\t%0, %1" : "=r"(__r) : "r"(x) : "cc"); 32-__r; }) )
> +
> +/* Implement fls() in C so that 64-bit args are suitably truncated */
> +static inline int fls(int x)
> +{
> + return __fls(x);
> +}
> +
Well, I like it more as it fixes all possible places instead of only
fls64().
But... can't we just move the #define body into the inline fls(x)?
Will there be other users of __fls(x)? It seems the
__builtin_constant_p(x) works for inline functions.
The above patch fixes the kernel panic, too.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
--
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