On Fri, 2014-11-14 at 13:13 +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote:
> Use the inline function instead of directly indexing the array.
>
> This allows some architectures with hardware instructions for bit
> reversals to eliminate the array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches
> Signed-off-by: Yalin Wang
> ---
[]
>
> From: Joe Perches [mailto:j...@perches.com]
> > I think the most safe way is change byte_rev_table[] to be satic, So
> > that no driver can access it directly, The build error can remind the
> > developer if they use byte_rev_table[] Directly .
>
> You can do that with your later patch, but the
On Wed, 2014-10-29 at 10:42 +0800, Wang, Yalin wrote:
> > Use the inline function instead of directly indexing the array.
> > This allows some architectures with hardware instructions for bit reversals
> > to eliminate the array.
[]
> > On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:46 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On
> Use the inline function instead of directly indexing the array.
>
> This allows some architectures with hardware instructions for bit reversals
> to eliminate the array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches
> ---
> On Sun, 2014-10-26 at 23:46 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 14:37
4 matches
Mail list logo