On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 02:08:59PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 03:16:21PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > It's not clear what's so horrible about emitting a function call to > > handle a run-time sized bitmap. Moreover, gcc also emits a function call > > for a compile-time-constant-but-huge nbits, so the comment isn't even > > accurate. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk> > > Hi Rasmus, > > Maybe too late, but > > Acked-by: Yury Norov <yno...@caviumnetworks.com>
Actually not, I don't see this in linux-next. Rasmus, do you know what happened to the series? Is it got stuck by unknown reasons? > > --- > > include/linux/bitmap.h | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/bitmap.h b/include/linux/bitmap.h > > index e34c361f4a92..3f0cac3aedca 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/bitmap.h > > +++ b/include/linux/bitmap.h > > @@ -28,8 +28,8 @@ > > * The available bitmap operations and their rough meaning in the > > * case that the bitmap is a single unsigned long are thus: > > * > > - * Note that nbits should be always a compile time evaluable constant. > > - * Otherwise many inlines will generate horrible code. > > + * The generated code is more efficient when nbits is known at > > + * compile-time and at most BITS_PER_LONG. > > * > > * :: > > * > > -- > > 2.16.4 -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
