Hi Peter,
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 09:06:27 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 03:59:52PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > diff --cc include/linux/bitops.h
> > index 15a5bcfcd0a2,9a874deee6e2..000000000000
> > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
> > @@@ -227,32 -227,30 +227,56 @@@ static inline unsigned long __ffs64(u6
> > return __ffs((unsigned long)word);
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * clear_bit32 - Clear a bit in memory for u32 array
> > + * @nr: Bit to clear
> > + * @addr: u32 * address of bitmap
> > + *
> > + * Same as clear_bit, but avoids needing casts for u32 arrays.
> > + */
> > +
> > +static __always_inline void clear_bit32(long nr, volatile u32 *addr)
> > +{
> > + clear_bit(nr, (volatile unsigned long *)addr);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * set_bit32 - Set a bit in memory for u32 array
> > + * @nr: Bit to clear
> > + * @addr: u32 * address of bitmap
> > + *
> > + * Same as set_bit, but avoids needing casts for u32 arrays.
> > + */
> > +
> > +static __always_inline void set_bit32(long nr, volatile u32 *addr)
> > +{
> > + set_bit(nr, (volatile unsigned long *)addr);
> > +}
>
> How is that not fundamentally broken for big-endian?
Yes, that went through my mind as well :-)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
--
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
