[RFC PATCH v2 08/15] bitops: Document the difference in indexingbetween fls() and __fls()

From: Srivatsa S. Bhat
Date: Tue Apr 09 2013 - 17:50:28 EST


fls() indexes the bits starting with 1, ie., from 1 to BITS_PER_LONG
whereas __fls() uses a zero-based indexing scheme (0 to BITS_PER_LONG - 1).
Add comments to document this important difference.

Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---

arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h | 4 ++++
include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
index 6dfd019..25e6fdc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h
@@ -380,6 +380,10 @@ static inline unsigned long ffz(unsigned long word)
* @word: The word to search
*
* Undefined if no set bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.
+ *
+ * Note: __fls(x) is equivalent to fls(x) - 1. That is, __fls() uses
+ * a zero-based indexing scheme (0 to BITS_PER_LONG - 1), where
+ * __fls(1) = 0, __fls(2) = 1, and so on.
*/
static inline unsigned long __fls(unsigned long word)
{
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h b/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h
index a60a7cc..ae908a5 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/bitops/__fls.h
@@ -8,6 +8,11 @@
* @word: the word to search
*
* Undefined if no set bit exists, so code should check against 0 first.
+ *
+ * Note: __fls(x) is equivalent to fls(x) - 1. That is, __fls() uses
+ * a zero-based indexing scheme (0 to BITS_PER_LONG - 1), where
+ * __fls(1) = 0, __fls(2) = 1, and so on.
+ *
*/
static __always_inline unsigned long __fls(unsigned long word)
{

--
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/