+ Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+ linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:51:01AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:39 AM Dennis Zhou <dennis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are we okay with adding the contract find_*_bit() operations must handle
asking for past size properly? FWIW, we'd have to modify most of the
iterators in find.h.
So I think we're ok with it, if only it makes the macros simpler.
I also think we should probably look at the m68k case, because while
that one seems to not have the bug that the arm case had, if we remove
the arm case the m68k code is now the only non-generic case remaining.
And it just makes me go "maybe we should get rid of the whole
'override the generic code' thing entirely?"
I don't think that inlining the first word (like the m68k code does)
is worth it, but it *is* possible that the architecture-specific
functions generate better code for some common cases,
We have find_bit_benchmark to check how it works in practice. Would
be great if someone with access to the hardware can share numbers.
so I think this
is a "needs looking at the generated code" and not just a blind
removal.
Linus
