Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86, bitops: Change bitops to be native operandsize

[Rob Landley]

On 11/12/2013 02:52:57 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:15 +0900, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> Talking about "ideal implementation" is also singularly stupid.
> >
> > I just want the various arch implementations to match
> > the docs.  I know that's stupid.
> >
> > Maybe if you really don't want to discuss things, you
> > should fix the documentation.
>
> E.g. by adding a paragraph that the actual allowed range of indices  
> may be
> a subset of "unsigned long" on some architectures.
> Or if we know that everyone supports at least 31 resp. 63 bits, that  
> it may
> be limited to 31 resp. 63 unsigned bits, which is the positive range  
> subset of
> "long".

If this ever turns into an actual patch to this file, could you cc: me  
on it so I can marshal it upstream? (Not enough domain expertise for me  
to produce it myself...)

Thanks,

Rob--
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/