[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200530212225.l2zbkq5mrvkabxik@master>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 21:22:25 +0000
From: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com,
christian.brauner@...ntu.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: use the same mechanism for get_count_order[_long]
Andrew,
Would you mind picking up this one? The test module doesn't show any warning
after this on applied.
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 09:59:58PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>These two functions share the same logic.
>
>Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
>---
> include/linux/bitops.h | 8 +++-----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
>index 5b5609e81a84..80703ef27aee 100644
>--- a/include/linux/bitops.h
>+++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
>@@ -188,12 +188,10 @@ static inline unsigned fls_long(unsigned long l)
>
> static inline int get_count_order(unsigned int count)
> {
>- int order;
>+ if (count == 0)
>+ return -1;
>
>- order = fls(count) - 1;
>- if (count & (count - 1))
>- order++;
>- return order;
>+ return fls(--count);
> }
>
> /**
>--
>2.23.0
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
Powered by blists - more mailing lists