Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:59:01 -0800 (PST) | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: amd64 bitops fix for -Os |
| |
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2005, Randy Dunlap <randy_d_dunlap@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > >> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@lsd.ic.unicamp.br> > > > Possibly Andrew or Andi have already merged this into their trees. > > However, I have a few comments on the patch re Linux style. > > They are meant to help inform you and others -- that's all. > > Thanks, I didn't realized I'd deviated from the recommended style. In > this updated version of the patch, I've removed the ifdefs that could > sanity-check arguments to the exported entry points and adjusted the > comments to follow the guidelines. > > >> --- arch/x86_64/lib/bitops.c~ 2005-10-27 22:02:08.000000000 -0200 > >> +++ arch/x86_64/lib/bitops.c 2005-10-29 18:24:27.000000000 -0200 > > > Diffs should start with a top-level names (even if it's entirely > > phony), so that they can be applied with many scripts that are around > > and expect that. > > I hope you mean -p1 vs -p0. I tend to prefer -p0 myself, but quilt > makes it easy enough to handle either :-) Fixed in the revised > version.
Yes, that's all that I meant.
> >> -inline long find_first_zero_bit(const unsigned long * addr, unsigned long size) > >> +static inline long > >> +__find_first_zero_bit(const unsigned long * addr, unsigned long size) > > > The only good reason for splitting a function header is if it would > > otherwise be > 80 columns, not just to put the function name at the > > beginning of the line. > > In this case, it would, because I'm adding static and two leading > underscores. But I'll keep that in mind, since this is quite > different from the GCC style. > > >> + /* Any register here would do, but GCC tends to > >> + prefer rbx over rsi, even though rsi is readily > >> + available and doesn't have to be saved. */ > >> + [addr] "S" (addr) : "memory"); > > > Comment in the middle of the difficult-to-read asm instruction in > > undesirable (IMO). > > I hope it is as useful after the statement. Moving it before it would > move it too far apart from what it refers to IMHO. > > Thanks again for the style feedback, it's really appreciated.
and thanks for the changes too.
> Should I have retained the problem description in the patch file, or > is the Signed-off-by: line enough?
There should be a short problem description in the patch (before the SOB: line).
See Documentation/SubmittingPatches or <http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html> or <http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/tpp.txt> .
-- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |