[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081204003143.GA21350@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:31:44 +0000
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, nico@....org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: Yet more ARM breakage in linux-next
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 09:52:44AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thursday 04 December 2008 07:11:09 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:29:05 +0000
> >
> > Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > This seems to be causing lots of ARM breakage:
> > >
> > > lib/find_next_bit.c:183: error: implicit declaration of function '__fls'
> > >
> > > Whoever's responsible,
> >
> > git-blame?
>
> It's me. Turns out sparc, avr32 and arm all don't define __fls in their
> asm/bitops.h, and I'm the first one to use it in generic code.
>
> But as I prepared this patch, I note that the armv5 __fls/fls is wrong:
__fls is wrong.
>
> /* Implement fls() in C so that 64-bit args are suitably truncated */
> static inline int fls(int x)
> {
> return __fls(x);
> }
>
> __fls(x) returns a bit number (0-31). fls() returns 0 or bitnumber+1.
The 'clz' instruction returns 32 for a zero input, or (31 - most significant
set bit) - which seems to work for fls() but not __fls().
Sending to Nicolas.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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