Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:03:44 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: simplify sync_test_bit() |
| |
Jan Beulich wrote: > There really is no need for a redundant implementation here, just keep > the alternative name for allowing consumers to use consistent naming. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> > > --- a/include/asm-x86/sync_bitops.h > +++ b/include/asm-x86/sync_bitops.h > @@ -130,26 +130,7 @@ static inline int sync_test_and_change_b > return oldbit; > } > > -static __always_inline int sync_constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr) > -{ > - return ((1UL << (nr & 31)) & > - (((const volatile unsigned int *)addr)[nr >> 5])) != 0; > -} > - > -static inline int sync_var_test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long * addr) > -{ > - int oldbit; > - > - __asm__ __volatile__("btl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0" > - :"=r" (oldbit) > - :"m" (ADDR),"Ir" (nr)); > - return oldbit; > -} > - > -#define sync_test_bit(nr,addr) \ > - (__builtin_constant_p(nr) ? \ > - sync_constant_test_bit((nr),(addr)) : \ > - sync_var_test_bit((nr),(addr))) > +#define sync_test_bit test_bit Hm,
#define sync_test_bit(nr, addr) test_bit(nr, addr)
would be better, but seems reasonable to me. Or even an inline for consistency.
J
| |