From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Akinobu Mita Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 2/6] powerpc: convert little-endian bitops macros to static inline functions Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:08:18 +0900 Message-ID: References: <1296136583-13815-1-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com> <1296136583-13815-3-git-send-email-akinobu.mita@gmail.com> <1297034086.14982.8.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:57412 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754455Ab1BGDIT (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Feb 2011 22:08:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1297034086.14982.8.camel@pasglop> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org 2011/2/7 Benjamin Herrenschmidt : > On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:56 +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote: >> (This patch is intended to be folded into the patch in -mm: >> powerpc-introduce-little-endian-bitops.patch) >> >> The little-endian bitops on powerpc are written as preprocessor >> macros with the cast to "unsigned long *". >> This means that even non-pointers will be accepted without an error, and >> that is a Very Bad Thing. >> >> This converts the little-endian bitops macros to static inline functions >> with proper prototypes. > > No objection to the powerpc variant of the patches. What is the status > with the wholes series tho ? Does it looks like its going to be > accepted ? Do you expect my Ack and will merge the whole thing at once ? The whole series now seems acceptable since I fixed two issues that Linus found annoying. (the naming and the change of prototype) Please give your ack if it is OK. I should have fixed them quickly so that the series went upstream in the last merge windows. But I couldn't because I spent some time fixing and compile testing for a bisection hole. > Does it break bisection unless it's merged as one single giant patch ? I think there is no known problem that breaks bisectability by this patch series.