[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] nodemask_t x86_64 changes [5/7]
    On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 23:14:12 -0800, 
    Paul Jackson <> wrote:
    >Does your way work if NR_CPUS is less than BITS_PER_LONG?
    >Won't gcc complain upon seeing something like, for say
    >NR_CPUS = 4 on a 32 bit system:
    > { [ 0 ... -1 ] = ~0UL, ~0UL << 28 }
    >with the errors and warnings:
    > error: empty index range in initializer
    > warning: excess elements in struct initializer

    I only did one case, to concentrate on the value for the last word. A
    full implementation has to cater for NR_CPUS < BITS_PER_LONG as well.

    >and shouldn't the last word be inverted: ~(~0UL << NR_CPUS_UNDEF) ?

    For big endian, ~0UL << NR_CPUS_UNDEF is right. For little endian, it
    depends on how you represent an incomplete bit map. Is it represented
    as a pure bit string, i.e. as if the arch were big endian? Or is it
    represented as a mapping onto the bytes of the underlying long?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.019 / U:3.468 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site