[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A0C2614.4010803@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 07:09:24 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Extend test_and_set_bit() test_and_clean_bit() to
64 bits in X86_64
Sheng Yang wrote:
>
> Yeah, this one also works well(lightly tested). :)
>
> But one thing should be noticed that, bit ops recognized the input as signed.
> According to SDM 2A 3.1.1.7 Operation Section, Bit(BitBase, BitOffset) can
> accept BitOffset as negative value, then search backward... Well, I indeed
> don't know when we need this, but I think keep signed here should be better...
>
Urk, you're right. How daft. I had preferred to switch it to unsigned
long to match MIPS and SPARC, but that probably is a good reason to
leave it signed. Pain.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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