On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:16:21PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > It's not clear what's so horrible about emitting a function call to > handle a run-time sized bitmap. Moreover, gcc also emits a function call > for a compile-time-constant-but-huge nbits, so the comment isn't even > accurate. > > Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]>
Hi Rasmus, Maybe too late, but Acked-by: Yury Norov <[email protected]> > --- > include/linux/bitmap.h | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/bitmap.h b/include/linux/bitmap.h > index e34c361f4a92..3f0cac3aedca 100644 > --- a/include/linux/bitmap.h > +++ b/include/linux/bitmap.h > @@ -28,8 +28,8 @@ > * The available bitmap operations and their rough meaning in the > * case that the bitmap is a single unsigned long are thus: > * > - * Note that nbits should be always a compile time evaluable constant. > - * Otherwise many inlines will generate horrible code. > + * The generated code is more efficient when nbits is known at > + * compile-time and at most BITS_PER_LONG. > * > * :: > * > -- > 2.16.4
