From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] bitops: compile time optimization for
 hweight_long(CONSTANT)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:20:40 +0100
Message-ID: <20100217172040.GC13429@aftab>
References: <20100208092845.GB12618@a1.tnic>
 <4B6FDAED.9060204@zytor.com>
 <20100208095945.GA14740@a1.tnic>
 <20100211172424.GB19779@aftab>
 <4B743F7D.3090605@zytor.com>
 <20100212170649.GC3114@aftab>
 <4B758FC0.1020600@zytor.com>
 <20100212174751.GD3114@aftab>
 <4B75A66A.70005@zytor.com>
 <4B7BF5D6.3030701@suse.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@googlemail.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>,
	Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
To: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from s15228384.onlinehome-server.info ([87.106.30.177]:50705 "EHLO
	mail.x86-64.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753041Ab0BQRUq (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:20:46 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B7BF5D6.3030701@suse.cz>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:57:42PM +0100, Michal Marek wrote:
> On 12.2.2010 20:05, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 02/12/2010 09:47 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>
> >> However, this is generic code and for the above to work we have to
> >> enforce x86-specific CFLAGS for it. What is the preferred way to do
> >> that?
> >>
> > 
> > That's a question for Michal and the kbuild list.  Michal?
> 
> (I was offline last week).
> 
> The _preferred_ way probably is not to do it :), but otherwise you can
> set CFLAGS_hweight.o depending on CONFIG_X86(_32|_64), just like you do
> in arch/x86/lib/Makefile already.

Wouldn't it be better if we had something like ARCH_CFLAGS_hweight.o
which gets set in the arch Makefile instead?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

--
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating Systems Research Center