[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100217172040.GC13429@aftab>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:20:40 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
To: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] bitops: compile time optimization for
hweight_long(CONSTANT)
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:57:42PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
> On 12.2.2010 20:05, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 02/12/2010 09:47 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>
> >> However, this is generic code and for the above to work we have to
> >> enforce x86-specific CFLAGS for it. What is the preferred way to do
> >> that?
> >>
> >
> > That's a question for Michal and the kbuild list. Michal?
>
> (I was offline last week).
>
> The _preferred_ way probably is not to do it :), but otherwise you can
> set CFLAGS_hweight.o depending on CONFIG_X86(_32|_64), just like you do
> in arch/x86/lib/Makefile already.
Wouldn't it be better if we had something like ARCH_CFLAGS_hweight.o
which gets set in the arch Makefile instead?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating Systems Research Center
--
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