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, Russell King wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 09:52:44AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 December 2008 07:11:09 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:29:05 +0000
> > >
> > > Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > This seems to be causing lots of ARM breakage:
> > > >
> > > > lib/find_next_bit.c:183: error: implicit declaration of function '__fls'
> > > >
> > > > Whoever's responsible,
> > >
> > > git-blame?
> >
> > It's me. Turns out sparc, avr32 and arm all don't define __fls in their
> > asm/bitops.h, and I'm the first one to use it in generic code.
> >
> > But as I prepared this patch, I note that the armv5 __fls/fls is wrong:
>
> __fls is wrong.

__fls used to _not_ exist at all on ARM until commit 0c65f459ce.

> > /* Implement fls() in C so that 64-bit args are suitably truncated */
> > static inline int fls(int x)
> > {
> > return __fls(x);
> > }
> >
> > __fls(x) returns a bit number (0-31). fls() returns 0 or bitnumber+1.
>
> The 'clz' instruction returns 32 for a zero input, or (31 - most significant
> set bit) - which seems to work for fls() but not __fls().

... and it looks like the person who introduced the commit above didn't
take into account the fact that __fls() already had another semantic in
the kernel.

> Sending to Nicolas.

I queued a fix addressing both issues for RMK to merge:

http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=5339/1


Nicolas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-04 04:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans