From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763214AbYDPM5u (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:57:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756320AbYDPM5m (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:57:42 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:47111 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751146AbYDPM5l (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:57:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:57:24 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Alexander van Heukelum Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Alexander van Heukelum , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: x86: ppc fixes for find_first_bit Message-ID: <20080416125724.GC6304@elte.hu> References: <1208191719.12568.1247788911@webmail.messagingengine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1208191719.12568.1247788911@webmail.messagingengine.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0016] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Alexander van Heukelum wrote: > Hello Thomas, > > I see Ingo has applied three fixes to the x86-tree: > find_first_bit() ppc fix > powerpc: fix powerpc build > find_next_bit() fix > > Could you please give some insight in what went wrong with > ppc and powerpc? > > "find_first_bit() ppc fix" disables the use of find_first_bit > for every user of GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT=y. It replaces it by a > macro to call find_next_bit with offset=0. It should be possible > for an arch to use GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT=y and implement > find_first_bit by itself. > > "powerpc: fix powerpc build" removes the private 'implementation' > of asm-generic/bitops/find.h. It seems correct code to me. What > was the problem here? If it is duplicate declarations, then > I would suggest putting #ifndef GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT around > them. > > "find_next_bit() fix" changes asm-generic/bitops/find.h to > declare find_next_bit only if CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT=n. > That is indeed a good change. It would be better if this > file disappeared completely, though. we had trouble making ppc64 defconfig build fine with your bitops changes applied (Thomas might still have the build failure logs). The fixes are ad-hoc band-aids to get it to build. We used crosscompilers to build on ppc64. Ingo