| Message ID | 1296136583-13815-3-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:56 +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote: > (This patch is intended to be folded into the patch in -mm: > powerpc-introduce-little-endian-bitops.patch) > > The little-endian bitops on powerpc are written as preprocessor > macros with the cast to "unsigned long *". > This means that even non-pointers will be accepted without an error, and > that is a Very Bad Thing. > > This converts the little-endian bitops macros to static inline functions > with proper prototypes. No objection to the powerpc variant of the patches. What is the status with the wholes series tho ? Does it looks like its going to be accepted ? Do you expect my Ack and will merge the whole thing at once ? Does it break bisection unless it's merged as one single giant patch ? Cheers, Ben.
2011/2/7 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>: > On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:56 +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote: >> (This patch is intended to be folded into the patch in -mm: >> powerpc-introduce-little-endian-bitops.patch) >> >> The little-endian bitops on powerpc are written as preprocessor >> macros with the cast to "unsigned long *". >> This means that even non-pointers will be accepted without an error, and >> that is a Very Bad Thing. >> >> This converts the little-endian bitops macros to static inline functions >> with proper prototypes. > > No objection to the powerpc variant of the patches. What is the status > with the wholes series tho ? Does it looks like its going to be > accepted ? Do you expect my Ack and will merge the whole thing at once ? The whole series now seems acceptable since I fixed two issues that Linus found annoying. (the naming and the change of prototype) Please give your ack if it is OK. I should have fixed them quickly so that the series went upstream in the last merge windows. But I couldn't because I spent some time fixing and compile testing for a bisection hole. > Does it break bisection unless it's merged as one single giant patch ? I think there is no known problem that breaks bisectability by this patch series.
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h index fe67024..2e56187 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h @@ -288,20 +288,35 @@ static __inline__ int test_bit_le(unsigned long nr, return (tmp[nr >> 3] >> (nr & 7)) & 1; } -#define __set_bit_le(nr, addr) \ - __set_bit((nr) ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, (unsigned long *)(addr)) -#define __clear_bit_le(nr, addr) \ - __clear_bit((nr) ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, (unsigned long *)(addr)) - -#define test_and_set_bit_le(nr, addr) \ - test_and_set_bit((nr) ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, (unsigned long *)(addr)) -#define test_and_clear_bit_le(nr, addr) \ - test_and_clear_bit((nr) ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, (unsigned long *)(addr)) - -#define __test_and_set_bit_le(nr, addr) \ - __test_and_set_bit((nr) ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, (unsigned long *)(addr)) -#define __test_and_clear_bit_le(nr, addr) \ - __test_and_clear_bit((nr) ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, (unsigned long *)(addr)) +static inline void __set_bit_le(int nr, void *addr) +{ + __set_bit(nr ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, addr); +} + +static inline void __clear_bit_le(int nr, void *addr) +{ + __clear_bit(nr ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, addr); +} + +static inline int test_and_set_bit_le(int nr, void *addr) +{ + return test_and_set_bit(nr ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, addr); +} + +static inline int test_and_clear_bit_le(int nr, void *addr) +{ + return test_and_clear_bit(nr ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, addr); +} + +static inline int __test_and_set_bit_le(int nr, void *addr) +{ + return __test_and_set_bit(nr ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, addr); +} + +static inline int __test_and_clear_bit_le(int nr, void *addr) +{ + return __test_and_clear_bit(nr ^ BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE, addr); +} #define find_first_zero_bit_le(addr, size) \ find_next_zero_bit_le((addr), (size), 0)
(This patch is intended to be folded into the patch in -mm: powerpc-introduce-little-endian-bitops.patch) The little-endian bitops on powerpc are written as preprocessor macros with the cast to "unsigned long *". This means that even non-pointers will be accepted without an error, and that is a Very Bad Thing. This converts the little-endian bitops macros to static inline functions with proper prototypes. Suggested-by: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> Signed-off-by: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@gmail.com> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org --- arch/powerpc/include/asm/bitops.h | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)