From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] bitops: add ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_BIT_LE guard Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:03:55 +0200 Message-ID: <201104211103.55929.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1303309252-9946-1-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com> <201104201631.40017.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:57008 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752966Ab1DUJEH (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2011 05:04:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Akinobu Mita Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , linux390@de.ibm.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Thursday 21 April 2011, Akinobu Mita wrote: > Should we also kill CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_BIT_LE option comletely, > then add the #ifdef for each find_*() in lib/find_next_bit.c and always build > it unconditionally ? I think that would be more consistent. It's not a big difference anyway, so do it only if you feel motivated. There are a lot of other things that could be changed this way, I'd only change it while reworking other aspects in order to avoid accidentally breaking things. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:03:55 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] bitops: add ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_BIT_LE guard In-Reply-To: References: <1303309252-9946-1-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com> <201104201631.40017.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <201104211103.55929.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 21 April 2011, Akinobu Mita wrote: > Should we also kill CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_BIT_LE option comletely, > then add the #ifdef for each find_*() in lib/find_next_bit.c and always build > it unconditionally ? I think that would be more consistent. It's not a big difference anyway, so do it only if you feel motivated. There are a lot of other things that could be changed this way, I'd only change it while reworking other aspects in order to avoid accidentally breaking things. Arnd