[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56F89A9B.10709@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:44:43 +0800
From: Zeng Zhaoxiu <zhaoxiu.zeng@...il.com>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Martin Kepplinger <martink@...teo.de>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/31] bitops: add parity functions
OK, I will do the V2 patches soon.
In addition, the best is to provide asm version parity functions for
powerpc, sparc, and x86.
在 2016年03月28日 01:56, Sam Ravnborg 写道:
>>> Any particular reason that you select one approach over the other
>>> in the different cases?
>> No particular reason, just like the architecture's __arch_hweightN.
> The general recommendatiosn these days are to use static inline
> for code to get better type check.
> And it would also be nice to be consistent across architectures.
>
> Sam
Powered by blists - more mailing lists