Re: [PATCH] x86: Extend test_and_set_bit() test_and_clean_bit() to64 bits in X86_64

[H. Peter Anvin]

Sheng Yang wrote:
> 
> Yeah, this one also works well(lightly tested). :)
> 
> But one thing should be noticed that, bit ops recognized the input as signed. 
> According to SDM 2A 3.1.1.7 Operation Section, Bit(BitBase, BitOffset) can 
> accept BitOffset as negative value, then search backward... Well, I indeed 
> don't know when we need this, but I think keep signed here should be better...
> 

Urk, you're right.  How daft.  I had preferred to switch it to unsigned
long to match MIPS and SPARC, but that probably is a good reason to
leave it signed.  Pain.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/