Re: [PATCH] 6fire: Convert byte_rev_table uses to bitrev8

2014-11-13 Thread Joe Perches
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 13:13 +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote: > Use the inline function instead of directly indexing the array. > > This allows some architectures with hardware instructions for bit > reversals to eliminate the array. > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches > Signed-off-by: Yalin Wang > --- []

Re: [PATCH] 6fire: Convert byte_rev_table uses to bitrev8

2014-11-13 Thread Joe Perches
On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 13:13 +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote: Use the inline function instead of directly indexing the array. This allows some architectures with hardware instructions for bit reversals to eliminate the array. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches j...@perches.com Signed-off-by: Yalin Wang

RE: [PATCH] 6fire: Convert byte_rev_table uses to bitrev8

2014-10-28 Thread Wang, Yalin
> From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com] > > I think the most safe way is change byte_rev_table[] to be satic, So > > that no driver can access it directly, The build error can remind the > > developer if they use byte_rev_table[] Directly . > > You can do that with your later patch, but the

Re: [PATCH] 6fire: Convert byte_rev_table uses to bitrev8

2014-10-28 Thread Joe Perches
On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 10:42 +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote: > > Use the inline function instead of directly indexing the array. > > This allows some architectures with hardware instructions for bit reversals > > to eliminate the array. [] > > On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:46 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > >

RE: [PATCH] 6fire: Convert byte_rev_table uses to bitrev8

2014-10-28 Thread Wang, Yalin
> Use the inline function instead of directly indexing the array. > > This allows some architectures with hardware instructions for bit reversals > to eliminate the array. > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches > --- > On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:46 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-10-27 at

RE: [PATCH] 6fire: Convert byte_rev_table uses to bitrev8

2014-10-28 Thread Wang, Yalin
Use the inline function instead of directly indexing the array. This allows some architectures with hardware instructions for bit reversals to eliminate the array. Signed-off-by: Joe Perches j...@perches.com --- On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:46 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: On Mon, 2014-10-27

Re: [PATCH] 6fire: Convert byte_rev_table uses to bitrev8

2014-10-28 Thread Joe Perches
On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 10:42 +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote: Use the inline function instead of directly indexing the array. This allows some architectures with hardware instructions for bit reversals to eliminate the array. [] On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:46 -0700, Joe Perches wrote: On Mon,

RE: [PATCH] 6fire: Convert byte_rev_table uses to bitrev8

2014-10-28 Thread Wang, Yalin
From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com] I think the most safe way is change byte_rev_table[] to be satic, So that no driver can access it directly, The build error can remind the developer if they use byte_rev_table[] Directly . You can do that with your later patch, but the existing