Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86, bitops: Change bitops to be native operand size

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 12:15 +0900, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Talking about "ideal implementation" is also singularly stupid.
>
> I just want the various arch implementations to match
> the docs.  I know that's stupid.
>
> Maybe if you really don't want to discuss things, you
> should fix the documentation.

E.g. by adding a paragraph that the actual allowed range of indices may be
a subset of "unsigned long" on some architectures.
Or if we know that everyone supports at least 31 resp. 63 bits, that it may
be limited to 31 resp. 63 unsigned bits, which is the positive range subset of
"long".

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/