2011/4/20 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>: > On Wednesday 20 April 2011, Akinobu Mita wrote: >> index 946a21b..bd2253e 100644 >> --- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/le.h >> +++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/le.h >> @@ -30,6 +30,8 @@ static inline unsigned long find_first_zero_bit_le(const void *addr, >> >> #define BITOP_LE_SWIZZLE ((BITS_PER_LONG-1) & ~0x7) >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_BIT_LE >> + >> extern unsigned long find_next_zero_bit_le(const void *addr, >> unsigned long size, unsigned long offset); >> extern unsigned long find_next_bit_le(const void *addr, >> @@ -38,6 +40,8 @@ extern unsigned long find_next_bit_le(const void *addr, >> #define find_first_zero_bit_le(addr, size) \ >> find_next_zero_bit_le((addr), (size), 0) >> >> +#endif /* CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_BIT_LE */ >> + >> #else >> #error "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>" >> #endif > > The style that we normally use in asm-generic is to test the macro itself > for existence, so in asm-generic, do: > > #ifndef find_next_zero_bit_le > extern unsigned long find_next_zero_bit_le(const void *addr, > unsigned long size, unsigned long offset); > #endif > > and in the architectures, write > > static inline unsigned long find_next_zero_bit_le(const void *addr, > unsigned long size, unsigned long offset) > #define find_next_zero_bit_le find_next_zero_bit_le > > I guess we can do the #ifdef separately for each of the three macros, > or choose one of them to use as a key. I see. Should we also kill CONFIG_GENERIC_FIND_BIT_LE option comletely, then add the #ifdef for each find_*() in lib/find_next_bit.c and always build it unconditionally ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
