Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > On 14 July 2012 13:34, Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> wrote: >> bitops.h uses inconsistently 'unsigned long' and 'int' for bit numbers. >> >> Unify to 'unsigned long' because it generates better code on x86_64. >> Adjust asserts accordingly. > > Still disagree with this patch, for the record.
So do I. Changing tried-and-true code for some unproven performance gain is a bad idea. In this particular case, it additionally deviates from the code's source. If you feel your patch is a worthwhile improvement, please take it to LKML, so the kernel and future borrowers of this code can profit. Copying free code without at least trying to contribute improvements back to the source isn't proper.
