[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] xen/ppc: Implement bitops.h
On 09.09.2023 00:50, Shawn Anastasio wrote: > +/** > + * test_bit - Determine whether a bit is set > + * @nr: bit number to test > + * @addr: Address to start counting from > + */ > +static inline int test_bit(int nr, const volatile void *addr) > +{ > + const volatile unsigned long *p = (const volatile unsigned long *)addr; > + return 1 & (p[BITOP_WORD(nr)] >> (nr & (BITOP_BITS_PER_WORD - 1))); > +} Do you really mean unsigned long in here? (As an aside I'd also recommend to drop the cast; I don't think it's needed for anything.) > +static inline unsigned long test_and_clear_bits( > + unsigned long mask, While apparently benign here, perhaps also better to use unsigned int. (Looks like I even missed instances yet further up.) > + volatile unsigned int *p) > +{ > + unsigned long old, t; I'm less certain here, because I don't know what exactly "r" permits on ppc. (Having said that I notice that mask also is used with an "r" constraint, so restrictions would then apply there as well. But if long is really needed in various placed, then I would say that a comment is warranted, perhaps next to the BITOP_* defines.) > + asm volatile ( PPC_ATOMIC_ENTRY_BARRIER > + "1: lwarx %0,0,%3,0\n" > + "andc %1,%0,%2\n" > + "stwcx. %1,0,%3\n" > + "bne- 1b\n" > + PPC_ATOMIC_EXIT_BARRIER > + : "=&r" (old), "=&r" (t) > + : "r" (mask), "r" (p) > + : "cc", "memory" ); > + > + return (old & mask); > +} > + > +static inline int test_and_clear_bit(unsigned int nr, > + volatile void *addr) > +{ > + return test_and_clear_bits(BITOP_MASK(nr), (volatile unsigned int *)addr > + > + BITOP_WORD(nr)) != 0; I think this is misleading wrapping of arguments. Even if not strictly mandated, imo if an argument doesn't fit on the rest of a line it should start on a fresh one. Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |