On 04/03/19 11:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 09:33:16AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Why not instead change set_bit/clear_bit to use btsl/btrl instead of
>> btsq/btrq?
>
> At least one of the faulty users (wireless) is in generic code and needs
> fixing regardless.
>
> For better or worse; the bitmap stuff is defined to work on unsigned
> long. Using it on smaller types already relies on small endian; but
> further enabling just makes it worse I feel. Better have the rules be
> uniform.
True that. On the other hand btsl/btrl is also one byte smaller if no
operand is %r8-%r15.
In any case, /me wonders if we should have a macro like
#define DECLARE_LE_BITMAP(name,bits) \
u32 name[DIV_ROUND_UP(bits, 32)] __aligned(sizeof(unsigned long))
Paolo
