Re: [PATCH 1/6] {set,clear,test}_bit() related cleanup

[Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>]

Hi!

> While working on these patch set, I found several possible cleanup
> on x86-64 and ia64.

It is probably not your fault, but...

> Index: 2.6-git/include/asm-x86_64/mmu_context.h
> ===================================================================
> --- 2.6-git.orig/include/asm-x86_64/mmu_context.h	2006-01-25 19:07:15.000000000 +0900
> +++ 2.6-git/include/asm-x86_64/mmu_context.h	2006-01-25 19:13:59.000000000 +0900
> @@ -34,12 +34,12 @@
>  	unsigned cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  	if (likely(prev != next)) {
>  		/* stop flush ipis for the previous mm */
> -		clear_bit(cpu, &prev->cpu_vm_mask);
> +		cpu_clear(cpu, prev->cpu_vm_mask);
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>  		write_pda(mmu_state, TLBSTATE_OK);
>  		write_pda(active_mm, next);
>  #endif
> -		set_bit(cpu, &next->cpu_vm_mask);
> +		cpu_set(cpu, next->cpu_vm_mask);
>  		load_cr3(next->pgd);
>  
>  		if (unlikely(next->context.ldt != prev->context.ldt)) 

cpu_set sounds *very* ambiguous. We have thing called cpusets, for
example. I'd not guess that is set_bit in cpu endianity (is it?).

								Pavel
-- 
Thanks, Sharp!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/