On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 18:19 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:11:51AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 05/23/2012 09:10 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 09:07 -0700, tip-bot for Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >> +#define BIT_64(n) (U64_C(1) << (n))
> > >
> > > Because writing 1ULL << n is too much work?
> > >
> >
> > Because writing 1ULL << n is broken in anything that needs to be used in
> > assembly, for example.
>
> Actually we need a BIT() macro that works both
> on 32- and 64-bit. But that won't be that easy:
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1010.1/02335.html
>
> And it should return UL for shift values < 32 and ULL otherwise.
If I remember my type rules correctly you'll get something like that
with:
#define BIT(n) ({ typeof(n) __n = (n); (__n < 32) ? (1UL << __n) : (1ULL << __n); })
That said, having it do this might be unexpected, also hpa mentioned
something about assembly magics which will obviously not work with the
above either.
Anyway, ignore me, I just thought the BIT_64() thing looked funny, but
apparently there's good reasons for it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|