From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix variable_test_bit()asmconstraints Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:37:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: <47DA9596.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47DA9596.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jan Beulich , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 14/3/08 14:11, "Jan Beulich" wrote: >> Regarding your other reply: I would actually be happy to change the bitops >> to work with longs only. I suspect, and would need to have demonstrated >> otherwise, that supporting bitops on arbitrary-width fields down to the >> instruction level is not really worthwhile. Either way, I accept that what >> we do now is dubious at best. > > Hmm, change it to work with longs only but also make it work without > casts? You mean then change all places where bitops are applied to > exclusively use 'unsigned long' as the fundamental type? I didn't look > at the number of places that would require changing, but I'm afraid it'd > be quite a few (and it might get you further away from Linux originals > in some cases). Yes, I wouldn't have expected that too be too hard, really. Are there lots of places with arrays of 32-bit integers? I doubt 16-bit or 8-bit fields are at all common. -- Keir