Em Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:49:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:43:26PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Ok, same results, it works, queuing this one, ack? > > Sure. Although I'm still somewhat puzzled by the duplicated effort of > __BITS_PER_LONG and BITS_PER_LONG. Well, I also can't think of something to justify that, would have to dig deeper to figure out why that duplication was introduced. Thanks, will queue this one up and be done with it. For the moment. :-) - Arnaldo > > commit a08cc3e6f7bb965672a3ff60f98d0dbbc5334ee7 > > Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri Jul 15 12:38:18 2016 -0300 > > > > tools: Simplify BITS_PER_LONG define > > > > Do it using (__CHAR_BIT__ * __SIZEOF_LONG__), simpler, works everywhere, > > reduces the complexity by ditching CONFIG_64BIT, that was being > > synthesized from yet another set of defines, which proved fragile, > > breaking the build on linux-next for no obvious reasons. > > If you ever do need to introduce CONFIG_64BIT, __LP64__ seems like the > right symbol to use for it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
