On Tue, 13 May 2008 14:43:43 +0400 Nickolay Vinogradov <nickolay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andrew Morton __________:On Sun, 04 May 2008 22:58:50 +0400Repair fls64() so that it works correctly when passed a u64.
____________________ ______________ ____________________ <nickolay@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
bugfix in fls64 on a big endian systems(against 2.6.25).Please describe the bug which you are fixing?
Signed-off-by: Nickolay Vinogradov <nickolay@xxxxxxxxx>
--
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/fls64.h b/include/asm-generic/bitops/fls64.h
index 1b6b17c..2eedb6f 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/fls64.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/fls64.h
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ static inline int fls64(__u64 x)
__u32 h = x >> 32;
if (h)
return fls(h) + 32;
- return fls(x);
+ return fls((__u32)x);
}
#endif /* _ASM_GENERIC_BITOPS_FLS64_H_ */
Perhaps a more robust fix to <whatever the bug is> would be to
repair fls() so that it works correctly when passed a u64. Perhaps.
Yes, but what's wrong with it now?
The fls() in include/asm-generic/bitops/fls.h takes an int.
The fls() in include/asm-x86/bitops.h takes an int.
So both of these will already trucate the incoming argument to 32-bits.
It seems that you are using a version of fls() which doesn't do this. Why? Which architecture are you using? Would it not be more robust to
fix fls()?