[PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv]

[PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv]

[Justin Chen]

Change the index to unsigned long in all bitops for [frv]

Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justin.chen@hp.com>
Reviewed-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>
---
 include/asm-frv/bitops.h |   29 +++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff -Nru a/include/asm-frv/bitops.h b/include/asm-frv/bitops.h
--- a/include/asm-frv/bitops.h	2009-02-13 15:31:30.000000000 -0800
+++ b/include/asm-frv/bitops.h	2009-02-15 18:19:39.789134772 -0800
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@
 #define atomic_clear_mask(mask, v)	atomic_test_and_ANDNOT_mask((mask), (v))
 #define atomic_set_mask(mask, v)	atomic_test_and_OR_mask((mask), (v))
 
-static inline int test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
+static inline int test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	volatile unsigned long *ptr = addr;
 	unsigned long mask = 1UL << (nr & 31);
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@
 	return (atomic_test_and_ANDNOT_mask(mask, ptr) & mask) != 0;
 }
 
-static inline int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
+static inline int test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	volatile unsigned long *ptr = addr;
 	unsigned long mask = 1UL << (nr & 31);
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@
 	return (atomic_test_and_OR_mask(mask, ptr) & mask) != 0;
 }
 
-static inline int test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
+static inline int test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	volatile unsigned long *ptr = addr;
 	unsigned long mask = 1UL << (nr & 31);
@@ -136,22 +136,22 @@
 	return (atomic_test_and_XOR_mask(mask, ptr) & mask) != 0;
 }
 
-static inline void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
+static inline void clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	test_and_clear_bit(nr, addr);
 }
 
-static inline void set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
+static inline void set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
 }
 
-static inline void change_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
+static inline void change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	test_and_change_bit(nr, addr);
 }
 
-static inline void __clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
+static inline void __clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	volatile unsigned long *a = addr;
 	int mask;
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@
 	*a &= ~mask;
 }
 
-static inline void __set_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
+static inline void __set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	volatile unsigned long *a = addr;
 	int mask;
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@
 	*a |= mask;
 }
 
-static inline void __change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
+static inline void __change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	volatile unsigned long *a = addr;
 	int mask;
@@ -181,7 +181,7 @@
 	*a ^= mask;
 }
 
-static inline int __test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
+static inline int __test_and_clear_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	volatile unsigned long *a = addr;
 	int mask, retval;
@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@
 	return retval;
 }
 
-static inline int __test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
+static inline int __test_and_set_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	volatile unsigned long *a = addr;
 	int mask, retval;
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@
 	return retval;
 }
 
-static inline int __test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr)
+static inline int __test_and_change_bit(unsigned long nr, volatile void *addr)
 {
 	volatile unsigned long *a = addr;
 	int mask, retval;
@@ -220,12 +220,13 @@
 /*
  * This routine doesn't need to be atomic.
  */
-static inline int __constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile void * addr)
+static inline int
+__constant_test_bit(unsigned long nr, const volatile void *addr)
 {
 	return ((1UL << (nr & 31)) & (((const volatile unsigned int *) addr)[nr >> 5])) != 0;
 }
 
-static inline int __test_bit(int nr, const volatile void * addr)
+static inline int __test_bit(unsigned long nr, const volatile void *addr)
 {
 	int 	* a = (int *) addr;
 	int	mask;

Re: [PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv]

[David Howells]

Justin Chen <jchen@hpdst41.cup.hp.com> wrote:

> Change the index to unsigned long in all bitops for [frv]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justin.chen@hp.com>
> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>

Mostly okay, apart from:

> -static inline int __constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile void * addr)
> +static inline int
> +__constant_test_bit(unsigned long nr, const volatile void *addr)

Please move the return type onto the next line also.  Other than that:

Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>

Re: [PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv]

[H. Peter Anvin]

David Howells wrote:
> 
>> -static inline int __constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile void * addr)
>> +static inline int
>> +__constant_test_bit(unsigned long nr, const volatile void *addr)
> 
> Please move the return type onto the next line also.  Other than that:
> 
> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>

What makes you say that, in particular?   A casual grep finds no less 
than 3524 instances of "static inline <type>" -- presumably with a 
function name following -- and only 447 instances of "static inline" 
without a type in the kernel.

	-hpa

Re: [PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv]

[David Howells]

H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> What makes you say that, in particular?

I prefer it.  Actually, I'd prefer it all to be on one line, but some people
get picky about the 80 char limit.

Besides, that "static inline" is merely a qualifier to the declaration of the
function.  The return type, name and args are part of the declaration of the
function and belong together more.

> A casual grep finds no less than 3524 instances of "static inline <type>" --
> presumably with a function name following -- and only 447 instances of
> "static inline" without a type in the kernel.

But how does it break down between "static inline type\nfunction_name" and
"static inline\ntype function_name"?  That's more to the point.

David

Re: [PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv]

[H. Peter Anvin]

David Howells wrote:
> 
>> A casual grep finds no less than 3524 instances of "static inline <type>" --
>> presumably with a function name following -- and only 447 instances of
>> "static inline" without a type in the kernel.
> 
> But how does it break down between "static inline type\nfunction_name" and
> "static inline\ntype function_name"?  That's more to the point.
> 

I believe that is the breakdown is roughly what you see above, i.e. over 
8:1; the pattern I used was looking for "^static inline[^;(]*$", and a 
visual examination of the results shows that even if my line count is 
slighly off the lopsidedness is still dramatic.

	-hpa

Re: [PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv]

[H. Peter Anvin]

David Howells wrote:
> 
>> A casual grep finds no less than 3524 instances of "static inline <type>" --
>> presumably with a function name following -- and only 447 instances of
>> "static inline" without a type in the kernel.
> 
> But how does it break down between "static inline type\nfunction_name" and
> "static inline\ntype function_name"?  That's more to the point.
> 

I believe that is the breakdown is roughly what you see above, i.e. over 
8:1; the pattern I used was looking for "^static inline[^;(]*$", and a 
visual examination of the results shows that even if my line count is 
slighly off the lopsidedness is still dramatic.

	-hpa

Re: [PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv]

[David Howells]

H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> > But how does it break down between "static inline type\nfunction_name" and
> > "static inline\ntype function_name"?  That's more to the point.
> >
> 
> I believe that is the breakdown is roughly what you see above, i.e. over 8:1;
> the pattern I used was looking for "^static inline[^;(]*$", and a visual
> examination of the results shows that even if my line count is slighly off the
> lopsidedness is still dramatic.

Sorry, I meant:

"static inline type\nfunction_name" vs "static inline type function_name"

David

Re: [PATCH 14/15] bitops: Change the bitmap index from int to unsigned long [frv]

[H. Peter Anvin]

David Howells wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> 
>>> But how does it break down between "static inline type\nfunction_name" and
>>> "static inline\ntype function_name"?  That's more to the point.
>>>
>> I believe that is the breakdown is roughly what you see above, i.e. over 8:1;
>> the pattern I used was looking for "^static inline[^;(]*$", and a visual
>> examination of the results shows that even if my line count is slighly off the
>> lopsidedness is still dramatic.
> 
> Sorry, I meant:
> 
> "static inline type\nfunction_name" vs "static inline type function_name"
> 

Well, the latter is obviously in vast majority, but that doesn't seem to 
have anything to do with anything at all here...

	-hpa