Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:56:27 -0800 | From | Stephen Hemminger <> | Subject | Re: Yet more ARM breakage in linux-next |
| |
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:57:14 +1030 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 December 2008 10:07:44 Randy Dunlap wrote: > > Rusty Russell wrote: > > > (Yes, classic useless kerneldoc documentation doesn't actually *say* > > > this clearly). > > > > oh fud. That's not a fault of kernel-doc, just of whoever wrote it. > > It's only as good as someone makes it. > > Sorry that this came out wrong. kernel-doc provides structure, but it can't > provide content. And authors seem unable to think from the POV of someone > *using* the API. > > With some work, I tracked it back to Stephen Hemminger for this comment in > 12d9c8420b9daa1da3d9e090640fb24bcd0deba2. It's since been fixed and moved, > but it's still: > > * __fls: find last set bit in word > * @word: The word to search > * > * Undefined if no set bit exists, so code should check against 0 first. > > Which would be *fine* if fls() didn't have such confusing bit numbering and > the exact same one-line description. > > Thanks, > Rusty.
I think the idea was that fls was supposed to match ffs which had stupid bit numbering inherited from BSD. and __ffs and __fls were same but undefined if word is 0 so that they could just be one line asm.
| |