From: Chen Gang S [mailto:gang.c...@sunrus.com.cn]
> On 2/5/15 05:09, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > Hi Sergei,
> >
> >>>> -static inline int hci_test_bit(int nr, void *addr)
> >>>> +static inline int hci_test_bit(int nr, const void *addr)
> >>>> {
> >>>> return *((__u32 *) addr + (nr >> 5)) & ((__u32) 1 << (nr & 31));
> >>>> }
> >>
> >>> Is there a 'standard' function lurking that will do the above.
> >>> On x86 the cpus 'bit test' instruction will handle bit numbers
> >>> greater than the word size - so it can be a single instruction.
> >>
> >> Of course, there's test_bit().
> >
> > we did leave hci_test_bit in the code since there are some userspace facing
> > API that we can not change. Remember that the origin of this code is
> > from 2.4.6 kernel.
> >
> > So we can only change this if you can ensure not to break the userspace API.
> > So might want to write unit tests to ensure working HCI filter before even
> > considering touching this.
> >
>
> For me, we have to remain hci_test_bit(), it is for "__u32 *" (which we
> can not change). The common test_bit() is for "unsigned long *", in this
> case, I guess it may cause issue under 64-bit environments.
Except that half the time you are passing a 'long *' and you haven't
explained why this isn't broken on 64bit architectures.
Note that on LE systems the size of the accesses used to access a dense
bit array don't matter. This is not true of BE systems.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
