Re: [PATCH 2/2] Use <asm-generic/bitops/le.h> in <asm-powerpc/bitops.h>

[Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>]

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.