On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 01:30:56 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 05:04:37PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:36:59 +0000, Al Viro wrote:  
> > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 03:59:33PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:  
> > > > > +static __always_inline __##type type##_replace_bits(__##type old,    
> > > > > \
> > > > > +                                     base val, base mask)            
> > > > > \
> > > > > +{                                                                    
> > > > > \
> > > > > +     __##type m = to(mask);                                          
> > > > > \
> > > > > +        if (__builtin_constant_p(val) &&                             
> > > > > \    
> > > > 
> > > > Is the lack of a __builtin_constant_p(mask) test intentional?  Sometimes
> > > > the bitfield is a packed array and people may have a helper to which
> > > > only the mask is passed as non-constant and the value is implied by the
> > > > helper, thus constant.    
> > > 
> > > If the mask in non-constant, we probably shouldn't be using that at all;
> > > could you show a real-world example where that would be the case?  
> > 
> > FIELD_* macros explicitly forbid this, since the code would be...
> > suboptimal with the runtime ffsl.  Real life examples are the hackish
> > macro NFP_ETH_SET_BIT_CONFIG() in
> > 
> > drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfpcore/nfp_nsp_eth.c  
> 
> Why not simply make nfp_eth_set_bit_config() static inline and be
> done with that?  It's not that large and there are only few callers,
> so...

It used to be __always_inline, but apparently LLVM/clang doesn't
propagate constants :(  

4e59532541c8 ("nfp: don't depend on compiler constant propagation")

> > I remember there was also some Renesas code..  maybe this:
> > 
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9881279/
> > 
> > it looks like cpg_z_clk_recalc_rate() and cpg_z2_clk_recalc_rate() only
> > differ in mask.  
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> That thing would expand into "reg &= 15" in one case and "reg >>= 8; reg &= 
> 15"
> in another.  Either of which is cheaper than a function call, and definitely
> cheaper than any kind of dynamic calculation of shift, no matter how 
> implemented.

Reply via email to