From: "Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
To: "Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix find_next_bit breakage on ppc and powerpc
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:04:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1208423077.31914.1248369455@webmail.messagingengine.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18438.33744.389334.543623@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:55:12 +1000, "Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>
said:
> Ingo Molnar writes:
> >
> > * Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Powerpc (and ppc) have their have some code in their bitops.h which
> > > used to be exacly the same as asm-generic/bitops/find.h. Include this
> > > header instead.
> > >
> > > This should also fix the compile problems due to the generic
> > > find_next_bit changes. Those were fixed by Thomas Gleixner in
> > > asm-generic/bitops/find.h earlier.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
> >
> > thanks, applied. I dropped:
>
> Why are powerpc (and ppc) patches
> - not being sent to the powerpc maintainer (me)
> - not being cc'd to the linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org list
> - ending up going through the x86 tree?
Hello,
My apologies for that. The patches that are now in x86#testing were
needed because of changes I introduced. Thomas Gleixner found a
problem with the patches that caused compile problems for basically
all archs with GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT=y, and his fix was to change
asm-generic/bitops/find.h. However, ppc and powerpc did things
differently... (x86 too, but they have special permissions ;) )
(Better late than never) Please consider applying the patch in
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/107
as:
[PATCH] powerpc: use asm-generic/bitops/find.h in bitops.h
Powerpc (and ppc) have some code in their bitops.h that is
exacly the same as asm-generic/bitops/find.h. Include this
header instead of the private implementation.
> How come patches to unify x86_32 and x86_64 bitops need to end up
> touching powerpc?
This was not a pure unification. Originally I wanted to convert
both x86_64 and i386 to the existing generic bitops. Andi Kleen,
however, objected because x86_64 would than lose a certain
optimization for small bitmaps. I moved this optimization to
the generic code, and broke non-x86. Everyone except ppc/powerpc
was fixed by Thomas Gleixner (in a generic header file).
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/107 just changes ppc/powerpc in
such a way that Thomas' fix works there too.
Greetings,
Alexander
> Paul.
--
Alexander van Heukelum
heukelum@fastmail.fm
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
To: "Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Cc: "Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@mailshack.com>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix find_next_bit breakage on ppc and powerpc
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:04:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1208423077.31914.1248369455@webmail.messagingengine.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18438.33744.389334.543623@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:55:12 +1000, "Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>
said:
> Ingo Molnar writes:
> >
> > * Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Powerpc (and ppc) have their have some code in their bitops.h which
> > > used to be exacly the same as asm-generic/bitops/find.h. Include this
> > > header instead.
> > >
> > > This should also fix the compile problems due to the generic
> > > find_next_bit changes. Those were fixed by Thomas Gleixner in
> > > asm-generic/bitops/find.h earlier.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
> >
> > thanks, applied. I dropped:
>
> Why are powerpc (and ppc) patches
> - not being sent to the powerpc maintainer (me)
> - not being cc'd to the linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org list
> - ending up going through the x86 tree?
Hello,
My apologies for that. The patches that are now in x86#testing were
needed because of changes I introduced. Thomas Gleixner found a
problem with the patches that caused compile problems for basically
all archs with GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT=y, and his fix was to change
asm-generic/bitops/find.h. However, ppc and powerpc did things
differently... (x86 too, but they have special permissions ;) )
(Better late than never) Please consider applying the patch in
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/107
as:
[PATCH] powerpc: use asm-generic/bitops/find.h in bitops.h
Powerpc (and ppc) have some code in their bitops.h that is
exacly the same as asm-generic/bitops/find.h. Include this
header instead of the private implementation.
> How come patches to unify x86_32 and x86_64 bitops need to end up
> touching powerpc?
This was not a pure unification. Originally I wanted to convert
both x86_64 and i386 to the existing generic bitops. Andi Kleen,
however, objected because x86_64 would than lose a certain
optimization for small bitmaps. I moved this optimization to
the generic code, and broke non-x86. Everyone except ppc/powerpc
was fixed by Thomas Gleixner (in a generic header file).
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/107 just changes ppc/powerpc in
such a way that Thomas' fix works there too.
Greetings,
Alexander
> Paul.
--
Alexander van Heukelum
heukelum@fastmail.fm
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-17 9:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-14 16:48 x86: ppc fixes for find_first_bit Alexander van Heukelum
2008-04-16 12:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-16 13:55 ` [PATCH] x86: fix find_next_bit breakage on ppc and powerpc Alexander van Heukelum
2008-04-16 14:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-16 15:03 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2008-04-16 22:55 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-04-17 9:04 ` Alexander van Heukelum [this message]
2008-04-17 9:04 ` Alexander van Heukelum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1208423077.31914.1248369455@webmail.messagingengine.com \
--to=heukelum@fastmail.fm \
--cc=heukelum@mailshack.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.