[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx9pgAQEFuNyANpHA6OcBL8LyHwknPUOb4=ysjYd4cnwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:40:40 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, frank.arnold@....com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/mce] x86/bitops: Move BIT_64() for a wider use
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Borislav Petkov
<borislav.petkov@....com> wrote:
>
> Actually we need a BIT() macro that works both
> on 32- and 64-bit. But that won't be that easy:
We could use __builtin_choose_expr(), but that *only* works with constants.
So we could do this:
static inline unsigned long bit(unsigned int x)
{
return 1ul << x;
}
static inline u64 bit64(unsigned int x)
{
return 1ull << x;
}
#define BIT(x) \
__builtin_choose_expr((x) < 8*sizeof(unsigned long), bit(x), bit64(x))
but then you *have* to use a plain constant for the BIT() macro.
Anything else will error out in a big way. Non-constant users would
have to be modified to use bit() and bit64() instead.
And no, I tested. You apparently can't do
#define __is_longlongshift(x) \
(__builtin_constant_p(x) && (x) < 8*(sizeof(long)))
because while that is a compile-time constant expression, it's not
"constant enough" for __builtin_choose_expr().
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