[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251120182909.522d58cc@pumpkin>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 18:29:09 +0000
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave
Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/44] x86/asm/bitops: Change the return type of
variable__ffs() to unsigned int
On Thu, 20 Nov 2025 10:54:01 -0500
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:40:57PM +0000, david.laight.linux@...il.com wrote:
> > From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
> >
> > The return type of variable__ffs() is currently 'unsigned long'.
> > This makes the x86 __ffs() be 'unsigned long' whereas the generic
> > version is 'unsigned int'.
> >
> > Similarly change variable_ffz() and ffz().
> >
> > This may save some REX prefix on 64bit.
> >
> > Detected by some extra checks added to min_t() to detect possible
> > truncation of large values.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 18 +++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > index c2ce213f2b9b..2e8a954d2e2d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
> > @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ arch_test_bit_acquire(unsigned long nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
> > variable_test_bit(nr, addr);
> > }
> >
> > -static __always_inline __attribute_const__ unsigned long variable__ffs(unsigned long word)
> > +static __always_inline __attribute_const__ unsigned int variable__ffs(unsigned long word)
>
> There's a mismatch with the generic ffs() in asm-generic/bitops/ffs.h.
>
> The generic_ffs() returns int. There is another variable__ffs() defined
> in arch/risk, also returning int.
>
> So I believe, the correct fix would be to switch x86 to int as well.
> And anyways, I believe this deserves a separate series.
It is a single patch, do you want me to resend the patch on its own?
(With a different commit message)
David
>
> Thanks,
> Yury
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists