On 2016-10-18 03:34, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Thanks, this is looking good. powerpc will be able to use the generic > header. > > On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 02:16:26 +0200 > Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 02:22:34PM +0200, Mathieu OTHACEHE wrote: >>>> +#include <asm/uaccess.h> >>>> +#include <asm/uaccess.h> >>> >>> Included twice. >> >> D'oh! >> >>>> +#include <asm/string.h> >>>> +#include <asm/page.h> >>>> +#include <asm/checksum.h> >>>> + >>>> +#include <asm-generic/asm-prototypes.h> >>>> + >>>> +#include <asm/page.h> >>>> +#include <asm/pgtable.h> >>>> +#include <asm/special_insns.h> >>>> +#include <asm/preempt.h> >>> >>> No <asm/arch_hweight.h> for __sw_hweight32 and __sw_hweight64 ? >> >> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/asm-prototypes.h >> b/include/asm-generic/asm-prototypes.h >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..df13637 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/include/asm-generic/asm-prototypes.h >> @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ >> +#include <linux/bitops.h> >> >> ... which has these. >> >> Alexey Dobriyan <adobri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> } bitops.h is wrong header as well. >> } Why do you need bitops for bunch of function prototypes? >> >> Unless you guys prefer using low-level headers only, that is. > > Well you can't use asm/arch_hweight.h in a generic header of course. > I would suggest just including linux/ variants where practical for > the asm-generic/asm-prototypes.h header. > > We should probably just bring all these arch patches through the > kbuild tree.
Adam, are you submitting a new version of your x86 asm-prototypes.h patch? Thanks, Michal
