From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the luto-misc tree Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:49:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20160715154930.GC3115@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20160715170654.0b09a8bc@canb.auug.org.au> <20160715072243.GP30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160715073119.GR30927@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160715150903.GA2523@redhat.com> <20160715152436.GB2523@redhat.com> <20160715154326.GC2523@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:47884 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751220AbcGOPtk (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:49:40 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160715154326.GC2523@redhat.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Andy Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:43:26PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Ok, same results, it works, queuing this one, ack? Sure. Although I'm still somewhat puzzled by the duplicated effort of __BITS_PER_LONG and BITS_PER_LONG. > commit a08cc3e6f7bb965672a3ff60f98d0dbbc5334ee7 > Author: Peter Zijlstra > Date: Fri Jul 15 12:38:18 2016 -0300 > > tools: Simplify BITS_PER_LONG define > > Do it using (__CHAR_BIT__ * __SIZEOF_LONG__), simpler, works everywhere, > reduces the complexity by ditching CONFIG_64BIT, that was being > synthesized from yet another set of defines, which proved fragile, > breaking the build on linux-next for no obvious reasons. If you ever do need to introduce CONFIG_64BIT, __LP64__ seems like the right symbol to use for it.