* Stephen Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the x86-latest tree got a conflict in
include/asm-powerpc/bitops.h between commit
cd008c0f03f3d451e5fbd108b8e74079d402be64 (generic: implement __fls on
all 64-bit archs) from the x86-latest tree and commit
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the x86-latest tree got a conflict in
include/asm-powerpc/bitops.h between commit
cd008c0f03f3d451e5fbd108b8e74079d402be64 (generic: implement __fls on
all 64-bit archs) from the x86-latest tree and commit
9f264be6101c42cb9e471c58322fb83a5cde1461 ([POWERPC]
Alexander van Heukelum writes:
Powerpc would pick up an optimized version via this chain: generic fls64
-
powerpc __fls -- __ilog2 -- asm (PPC_CNTLZL %0,%1 : =r (lz) : r
(x)).
Why wouldn't powerpc continue to use the fls64 that I have in there
now?
However, the generic version of fls64
Ingo Molnar writes:
Paul, do you agree with those generic bitops changes? Just in case it's
Well, it looks OK, but I'm sure people are going to get confused with
fls vs. fls64 vs. __fls all being subtly different. I'd say it's
worth putting a little file in the Documentation directory to
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:36:06 +0200, Gabriel Paubert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 03:07:13PM +0200, Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:13:06 +1000, Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Alexander van Heukelum writes:
Powerpc would pick up an
