From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910036B01BD for ; Thu, 14 May 2009 10:09:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4A0C2614.4010803@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 07:09:24 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Extend test_and_set_bit() test_and_clean_bit() to 64 bits in X86_64 References: <1242202647-32446-1-git-send-email-sheng@linux.intel.com> <4A0AFB7D.2080105@zytor.com> <4A0B036B.7000107@zytor.com> <200905141152.29378.sheng@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <200905141152.29378.sheng@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Sheng Yang Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm , Ingo Molnar List-ID: Sheng Yang wrote: > > Yeah, this one also works well(lightly tested). :) > > But one thing should be noticed that, bit ops recognized the input as signed. > According to SDM 2A 3.1.1.7 Operation Section, Bit(BitBase, BitOffset) can > accept BitOffset as negative value, then search backward... Well, I indeed > don't know when we need this, but I think keep signed here should be better... > Urk, you're right. How daft. I had preferred to switch it to unsigned long to match MIPS and SPARC, but that probably is a good reason to leave it signed. Pain. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org