Hi Oleksii,
> On 6 May 2024, at 11:15 AM, Oleksii Kurochko
> wrote:
>
> The mentioned macros exist only because of Linux compatible purpose.
>
> The patch defines __ffs() in terms of Xen bitops and it is safe
> to define in this way ( as __ffs() - 1 ) as considering that __ffs()
> was defined
On 06/05/2024 12:15, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>
>
> The mentioned macros exist only because of Linux compatible purpose.
>
> The patch defines __ffs() in terms of Xen bitops and it is safe
> to define in this way ( as __ffs() - 1 ) as considering that __ffs()
> was defined as __builtin_ctzl(x)
The mentioned macros exist only because of Linux compatible purpose.
The patch defines __ffs() in terms of Xen bitops and it is safe
to define in this way ( as __ffs() - 1 ) as considering that __ffs()
was defined as __builtin_ctzl(x), which has undefined behavior when x=0,
so it is assumed that s
