Re: [Suggestion] arch/*/include/asm/bitops.h: about __set_bit() API.

[Chen Gang]

On 06/11/2013 03:32 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Chen Gang <gang.chen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> using 'unsigned int *', implicitly:
>>> >>   ./ia64/include/asm/bitops.h:63:__set_bit (int nr, volatile void *addr)
>> >
>> > There is some downside on ia64 to your suggestion.  If "addr" is properly
>> > aligned for an "int", but misaligned for a long ... i.e. addr%8 == 4, then I'll
>> > take an unaligned reference trap if I work with long* where the current code
>> > working with int* does not.
>> >
>> > Now perhaps all the callers do guarantee long* alignment?  But I don't know.
>> >
>> > Apart from uniformity, there doesn't see to be any upside to changing this.
> The address pointers have been supposed to be "long *" for a very long time.
> Probably alpha (the second official Linux platform) did it
> differently, and never
> standardized to "long *".

Excuse me, I am not quite familiar with the details, but I guess, it is
about functional feature issues, not (or not only) about bug issues.

For the architectures which can fully support 64-bit OS, excluding ia64
and alpha, all of them can support setting 64 bits (from 0 to 63) under
64-bit machine.

I am not quite sure whether any sub-systems have already set higher bit
(> 31) under 64-bit machine, but in the future, it seems they could (at
least our API supposed so).


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Asianux Corporation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/