Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h

Russell King wrote:

This code generates more expensive shifts than our (ARMs) existing C
version.  This is a backward step.

Basically, shifts which depend on a variable are more expensive than
constant-based shifts.

arm26 will have the same problem here.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/6] RFC: use include/asm-generic/bitops.h
    • From: [email protected] (Akinobu Mita)
  • [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
    • From: [email protected] (Akinobu Mita)
  • Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
    • From: Russell King <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/4] pmap: remove smaps files
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC] VM: I have a dream...
• Previous by thread: [PATCH 12/12] generic minix_{test,set,test_and_clear,test,find_first_zero}_bit()
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]