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

On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 05:34:12AM +0100, Edgar Toernig wrote:
> Why shift at all?

Becuase that *is* a valid architecture tuning knob.  Most risc
machines can't AND with arbitrary constants like that, and loading
the constant might bulk things up more than just using the shift.


r~
-
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]>
- Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
  - From: Richard Henderson <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
  - From: Edgar Toernig <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: Problems with MSI-X on ia64
Next by Date: Re: pthread_mutex_unlock (was Re: sched_yield() makes OpenLDAP slow)
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 3/6] C-language equivalents of include/asm-*/bitops.h
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]