From: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitfield: Use __ffs64(x) to fix missing __ffsdi2()
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:06:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171010080656.1d12d6a7@cakuba.netronome.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdVTdPNV3EUx_ErXBL22RoNUuJ4eSAgOeTKPFEhw2+xS7g@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:03:50 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Jakub Kicinski
> <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:40:49 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On most architectures[*], gcc turns __builtin_ffsll() into a call to
> >> __ffsdi2(), which is not provided by any architecture, leading to
> >> failures like:
> >>
> >> rcar-gen3-cpg.c:(.text+0x289): undefined reference to `__ffsdi2'
> >>
> >> To fix this, use __ffs64() instead, which is available on all
> >> architectures.
> >>
> >> [*] Known exceptions are some 64-bit architectures like amd64, arm64,
> >> ia64, powerpc64, and tilegx.
> >>
> >> Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> >> Fixes: 3e9b3112ec74f192 ("add basic register-field manipulation macros")
> >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> >> ---
> >> include/linux/bitfield.h | 3 ++-
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >> index 8b9d6fff002db113..0a827677372756fa 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
> >> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> >> #ifndef _LINUX_BITFIELD_H
> >> #define _LINUX_BITFIELD_H
> >>
> >> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> >> #include <linux/bug.h>
> >>
> >> /*
> >> @@ -46,7 +47,7 @@
> >> * reg |= FIELD_PREP(REG_FIELD_C, c);
> >> */
> >>
> >> -#define __bf_shf(x) (__builtin_ffsll(x) - 1)
> >> +#define __bf_shf(x) __ffs64(x)
> >
> > Hm. The build bot failure made me think. I think rcar-gen3-cpg.c may
> > be doing something wrong here, could you point me at the patch in
> > question? I don't see any FIELD_* there in Linus's tree.
>
> See series "[PATCH v3 0/6] clk: renesas: r8a779[56]: Add Z and Z2 clock
> support" (https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg609499.html).
>
> > __bf_shf() is supposed to be used with constant masks only, therefore
> > the call must be optimized away completely.
> >
> >> #define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx) \
> >> ({ \
>
> IC.
>
> Yes, it looks like __ffs64() can't be optimized away like __builtin_ffsll() :-(
>
> Apparently the patch series above uses __bf_shf() directly, to avoid the
> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(), which doesn't work when the call isn't optimized away.
> Sorry for not noticing that before...
>
> One way to fix that (non-)API abuse would be to get rid of __bf_shf(),
> and open code it as __builtin_ffsll(x) - 1 everywhere...
>
> What do you think?
I'm starting to feel like we/I should come up with a way to convert the
masks into something that can be passed to functions :( The "mask must
be constant" problem is coming up again and again. The only problem is
I'm not sure how to pack the mask+shift into a single argument :( Also
the mask can be 32 or 64 bit, it would be nice to not force the output
to always be 64bit...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-10 15:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-09 8:40 [PATCH] bitfield: Use __ffs64(x) to fix missing __ffsdi2() Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-10-09 14:34 ` Jakub Kicinski
2017-10-09 14:34 ` Jakub Kicinski
2017-10-09 22:37 ` kbuild test robot
2017-10-09 22:37 ` kbuild test robot
2017-10-09 22:53 ` Jakub Kicinski
2017-10-10 7:03 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-10-10 7:03 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-10-10 15:06 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2017-10-10 15:06 ` Jakub Kicinski
2017-10-09 22:57 ` kbuild test robot
2017-10-09 22:57 ` kbuild test robot
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=20171010080656.1d12d6a7@cakuba.netronome.com \
--to=jakub.kicinski@netronome.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).