Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 Jun 2008 00:50:33 +0100 | From | Ben Hutchings <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] Use <asm-generic/bitops/le.h> in <asm-powerpc/bitops.h> |
| |
Vegard Nossum wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Ben Hutchings > <bhutchings@solarflare.com> wrote: > > The powerpc little-endian bitops have no arch-specific optimisations. > > > > Remove clashing macros from these headers. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com> > > --- > > include/asm-generic/bitops/le.h | 1 - > > include/asm-powerpc/bitops.h | 34 +--------------------------------- > > 2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/le.h b/include/asm-generic/bitops/le.h > > index a51c4ca..08c5df3 100644 > > --- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/le.h > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/le.h > > @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ > > #include <asm/types.h> > > #include <asm/byteorder.h> > > > > -#define BITOP_WORD(nr) ((nr) / BITS_PER_LONG) > > #define BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE ((BITS_PER_LONG-1) & ~0x7) > > > > #if defined(__LITTLE_ENDIAN) > > diff --git a/include/asm-powerpc/bitops.h b/include/asm-powerpc/bitops.h > > index dcbf9a8..afe2fa3 100644 > > --- a/include/asm-powerpc/bitops.h > > +++ b/include/asm-powerpc/bitops.h > > @@ -54,7 +54,6 @@ > > > > #define BITOP_MASK(nr) (1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG)) > > #define BITOP_WORD(nr) ((nr) / BITS_PER_LONG) > > -#define BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE ((BITS_PER_LONG-1) & ~0x7) > > > > static __inline__ void set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr) > > { > > @@ -340,39 +339,8 @@ static __inline__ int fls64(__u64 x) > > > > /* Little-endian versions */ > > > > -static __inline__ int test_le_bit(unsigned long nr, > > - __const__ unsigned long *addr) > > -{ > > - __const__ unsigned char *tmp = (__const__ unsigned char *) addr; > > - return (tmp[nr >> 3] >> (nr & 7)) & 1; > > -} > > +#include <asm-generic/bitops/le.h> > > Is it completely impossible to move this #include to the top of the file?
It's probably entirely possible.
> I know that a lot of the current headers don't do this, and I don't > think it's a written rule with the kernel sources, BUT it's a nice > convention IMHO, and makes headers generally more maintainable. What > do you think?
If you look at the current version of this header you'll see it includes several other bitops headers at around this point. I tend to follow the conventions I see.
Ben.
-- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
| |