On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 9:14 AM Frederic Weisbecker <frede...@kernel.org> wrote: > > +static u64 lock_usage_mask(struct lock_usage *usage) > +{ > + return BIT(usage->bit); > +}
More insane "u64" - and it's *incorrect* too. #define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr)) fundamentally means that "BIT()" can only work on up to "unsigned long". So this odd use of u64 seems to be a disease. It only uses more memory (and more CPU) for no obvious reason. u64 is not some "default type". It's expensive and shouldn't be used unless you have a *reason* for it. Linus