From: "Alexander van Heukelum" <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
To: "Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix find_next_bit breakage on ppc and powerpc
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:04:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1208423077.31914.1248369455@webmail.messagingengine.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <18438.33744.389334.543623@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:55:12 +1000, "Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>
said:
> Ingo Molnar writes:
> >
> > * Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Powerpc (and ppc) have their have some code in their bitops.h which
> > > used to be exacly the same as asm-generic/bitops/find.h. Include this
> > > header instead.
> > >
> > > This should also fix the compile problems due to the generic
> > > find_next_bit changes. Those were fixed by Thomas Gleixner in
> > > asm-generic/bitops/find.h earlier.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm>
> >
> > thanks, applied. I dropped:
>
> Why are powerpc (and ppc) patches
> - not being sent to the powerpc maintainer (me)
> - not being cc'd to the linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org list
> - ending up going through the x86 tree?
Hello,
My apologies for that. The patches that are now in x86#testing were
needed because of changes I introduced. Thomas Gleixner found a
problem with the patches that caused compile problems for basically
all archs with GENERIC_FIND_NEXT_BIT=y, and his fix was to change
asm-generic/bitops/find.h. However, ppc and powerpc did things
differently... (x86 too, but they have special permissions ;) )
(Better late than never) Please consider applying the patch in
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/107
as:
[PATCH] powerpc: use asm-generic/bitops/find.h in bitops.h
Powerpc (and ppc) have some code in their bitops.h that is
exacly the same as asm-generic/bitops/find.h. Include this
header instead of the private implementation.
> How come patches to unify x86_32 and x86_64 bitops need to end up
> touching powerpc?
This was not a pure unification. Originally I wanted to convert
both x86_64 and i386 to the existing generic bitops. Andi Kleen,
however, objected because x86_64 would than lose a certain
optimization for small bitmaps. I moved this optimization to
the generic code, and broke non-x86. Everyone except ppc/powerpc
was fixed by Thomas Gleixner (in a generic header file).
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/16/107 just changes ppc/powerpc in
such a way that Thomas' fix works there too.
Greetings,
Alexander
> Paul.
--
Alexander van Heukelum
heukelum@fastmail.fm
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service
parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-17 9:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
[parent not found: <18438.33744.389334.543623@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1208423077.31914.1248369455@webmail.messagingengine.com \
--to=heukelum@fastmail.fm \
--cc=heukelum@mailshack.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).