[RFC PATCH v4 10/40] bitops: Document the difference in indexing between fls() and __fls()

2013-09-25 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat 
fls() indexes the bits starting with 1, ie., from 1 to BITS_PER_LONG
whereas __fls() uses a zero-based indexing scheme (0 to BITS_PER_LONG - 1).
Add comments to document this important difference.

Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat 
---

 arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h  |4 
 include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h |5 +
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
index 41639ce..9186e4a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
@@ -388,6 +388,10 @@ static inline unsigned long ffz(unsigned long word)
  * @word: The word to search
  *
  * Undefined if no set bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.
+ *
+ * Note: __fls(x) is equivalent to fls(x) - 1. That is, __fls() uses
+ * a zero-based indexing scheme (0 to BITS_PER_LONG - 1), where
+ * __fls(1) = 0, __fls(2) = 1, and so on.
  */
 static inline unsigned long __fls(unsigned long word)
 {
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h 
b/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h
index a60a7cc..ae908a5 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h
@@ -8,6 +8,11 @@
  * @word: the word to search
  *
  * Undefined if no set bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.
+ *
+ * Note: __fls(x) is equivalent to fls(x) - 1. That is, __fls() uses
+ * a zero-based indexing scheme (0 to BITS_PER_LONG - 1), where
+ * __fls(1) = 0, __fls(2) = 1, and so on.
+ *
  */
 static __always_inline unsigned long __fls(unsigned long word)
 {

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[RFC PATCH v4 10/40] bitops: Document the difference in indexing between fls() and __fls()

2013-09-25 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat 
fls() indexes the bits starting with 1, ie., from 1 to BITS_PER_LONG
whereas __fls() uses a zero-based indexing scheme (0 to BITS_PER_LONG - 1).
Add comments to document this important difference.

Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
---

 arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h  |4 
 include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h |5 +
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
index 41639ce..9186e4a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
@@ -388,6 +388,10 @@ static inline unsigned long ffz(unsigned long word)
  * @word: The word to search
  *
  * Undefined if no set bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.
+ *
+ * Note: __fls(x) is equivalent to fls(x) - 1. That is, __fls() uses
+ * a zero-based indexing scheme (0 to BITS_PER_LONG - 1), where
+ * __fls(1) = 0, __fls(2) = 1, and so on.
  */
 static inline unsigned long __fls(unsigned long word)
 {
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h 
b/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h
index a60a7cc..ae908a5 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h
@@ -8,6 +8,11 @@
  * @word: the word to search
  *
  * Undefined if no set bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.
+ *
+ * Note: __fls(x) is equivalent to fls(x) - 1. That is, __fls() uses
+ * a zero-based indexing scheme (0 to BITS_PER_LONG - 1), where
+ * __fls(1) = 0, __fls(2) = 1, and so on.
+ *
  */
 static __always_inline unsigned long __fls(unsigned long word)
 {

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/