On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:00:19 +1000 Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 24 October 2007 15:09, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > Can we expand this macro definition, or should I look for a way to
> > > fool^W teach kernel-doc about this?
> > >
> > > scripts/kernel-doc says:
> > > Error(linux-2.6.24-rc1//include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188): cannot
> > > understand
> > > prototype: 'test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit '
> >
> > Actually, it probably looks a bit nicer like this anyway. If you grep
> > for it, then you can actually see the parameters...
> >
> > On third thoughts, an inline function might be the best thing to do,
> > and also avoid setting a bad example. What do you think?
>
> ---
>
> From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Use duplicated inline functions for test_and_set_bit_lock() on x86
> instead of #define macros, thus avoiding a bad example. This allows
> kernel-doc to run cleanly instead of terminating with an error:
Hmm, can we simply do
static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long * addr)
{
return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
}
please ?
tglx
> Error(linux-2.6.24-rc1//include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188): cannot understand
> prototype: 'test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit '
>
> Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h | 13 +++++++++++--
> include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h | 13 +++++++++++--
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-2.6.24-rc1.orig/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h
> +++ linux-2.6.24-rc1/include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h
> @@ -183,9 +183,18 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(int n
> * @nr: Bit to set
> * @addr: Address to count from
> *
> - * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86
> + * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86.
> */
> -#define test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit
> +static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long *
> addr)
> +{
> + int oldbit;
> +
> + __asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX
> + "btsl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0"
> + :"=r" (oldbit),"+m" (ADDR)
> + :"Ir" (nr) : "memory");
> + return oldbit;
> +}
>
> /**
> * __test_and_set_bit - Set a bit and return its old value
> --- linux-2.6.24-rc1.orig/include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h
> +++ linux-2.6.24-rc1/include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h
> @@ -173,9 +173,18 @@ static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit(i
> * @nr: Bit to set
> * @addr: Address to count from
> *
> - * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86
> + * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86.
> */
> -#define test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit
> +static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile void * addr)
> +{
> + int oldbit;
> +
> + __asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX
> + "btsl %2,%1\n\tsbbl %0,%0"
> + :"=r" (oldbit),ADDR
> + :"dIr" (nr) : "memory");
> + return oldbit;
> +}
>
> /**
> * __test_and_set_bit - Set a bit and return its old value
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
