[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1385853382.1974.297@driftwood>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:16:22 -0600
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
james.t.kukunas@...el.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86, bitops: Change bitops to be native operand
size
On 11/12/2013 02:52:57 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:15 +0900, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> Talking about "ideal implementation" is also singularly stupid.
> >
> > I just want the various arch implementations to match
> > the docs. I know that's stupid.
> >
> > Maybe if you really don't want to discuss things, you
> > should fix the documentation.
>
> E.g. by adding a paragraph that the actual allowed range of indices
> may be
> a subset of "unsigned long" on some architectures.
> Or if we know that everyone supports at least 31 resp. 63 bits, that
> it may
> be limited to 31 resp. 63 unsigned bits, which is the positive range
> subset of
> "long".
If this ever turns into an actual patch to this file, could you cc: me
on it so I can marshal it upstream? (Not enough domain expertise for me
to produce it myself...)
Thanks,
Rob--
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