[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180904113046.GQ11447@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 14:30:46 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] linux/bitmap.h: relax comment on compile-time
constant nbits
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 02:08:59PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:16:21PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > It's not clear what's so horrible about emitting a function call to
> > handle a run-time sized bitmap. Moreover, gcc also emits a function call
> > for a compile-time-constant-but-huge nbits, so the comment isn't even
> > accurate.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
>
> Hi Rasmus,
>
> Maybe too late, but
>
> Acked-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Actually not, I don't see this in linux-next.
Rasmus, do you know what happened to the series? Is it got stuck by unknown reasons?
> > ---
> > include/linux/bitmap.h | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/bitmap.h b/include/linux/bitmap.h
> > index e34c361f4a92..3f0cac3aedca 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/bitmap.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/bitmap.h
> > @@ -28,8 +28,8 @@
> > * The available bitmap operations and their rough meaning in the
> > * case that the bitmap is a single unsigned long are thus:
> > *
> > - * Note that nbits should be always a compile time evaluable constant.
> > - * Otherwise many inlines will generate horrible code.
> > + * The generated code is more efficient when nbits is known at
> > + * compile-time and at most BITS_PER_LONG.
> > *
> > * ::
> > *
> > --
> > 2.16.4
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists