Re: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:07:28AM -0800, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> I think these should be defined to operate on arrays of unsigned int.
> Bit is a bit, no matter how many byte you load (8/16/32/64), you can
> only operate on just one bit.

Well, if it doesn't matter, why is unsigned int better?

unsigned long is typically the native register size, right?
I'd expect that to be more efficient on most arches.

grant
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()
    • From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()
    • From: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
  • RE: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()
    • From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] AMD64: fix mce_cpu_quirks typos
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()
• Next by thread: RE: [PATCH 1/12] generic *_bit()
• 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]