Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> wrote: > ... and this be part of _find_next_bit? Can find_next_bit not be simply > 'return _find_next_bit(addr, size, offset, 1);', and similarly for > find_next_zero_bit? Btw., passing true and false for the boolean > parameter may be a little clearer.
Looking at the generated code, it would be better to replace the boolean parameter with 0ul or ~0ul and XOR with it. The same number of registers, and saves a conditional branch. (I was hoping GCC would figure that trick out, but it didn't.) -- 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/
