Re: Yet more ARM breakage in linux-next

From: Stephen Hemminger
Date: Wed Dec 03 2008 - 21:56:45 EST

On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:57:14 +1030
Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thursday 04 December 2008 10:07:44 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > (Yes, classic useless kerneldoc documentation doesn't actually *say*
> > > this clearly).
> >
> > oh fud. That's not a fault of kernel-doc, just of whoever wrote it.
> > It's only as good as someone makes it.
> Sorry that this came out wrong. kernel-doc provides structure, but it can't
> provide content. And authors seem unable to think from the POV of someone
> *using* the API.
> With some work, I tracked it back to Stephen Hemminger for this comment in
> 12d9c8420b9daa1da3d9e090640fb24bcd0deba2. It's since been fixed and moved,
> but it's still:
> * __fls: find last set bit in word
> * @word: The word to search
> *
> * Undefined if no set bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.
> Which would be *fine* if fls() didn't have such confusing bit numbering and
> the exact same one-line description.
> Thanks,
> Rusty.

I think the idea was that fls was supposed to match ffs which had stupid
bit numbering inherited from BSD. and __ffs and __fls were same
but undefined if word is 0 so that they could just be one line asm.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at