lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-04 03:59    [W:0.091 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site