On Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> On 2023-11-24 09:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 23.11.2023 08:37, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> > > The definitions of ffs{l}? violate Rule 10.1, by using the well-known
> > > pattern (x & -x); its usage is wrapped by the ISOLATE_LSB macro.
> > >
> > > No func
On 2023-11-24 09:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.11.2023 08:37, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
The definitions of ffs{l}? violate Rule 10.1, by using the well-known
pattern (x & -x); its usage is wrapped by the ISOLATE_LSB macro.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini
Reviewed-by: Stefano St
On 23.11.2023 08:37, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> The definitions of ffs{l}? violate Rule 10.1, by using the well-known
> pattern (x & -x); its usage is wrapped by the ISOLATE_LSB macro.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini
> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini
This patch failed
The definitions of ffs{l}? violate Rule 10.1, by using the well-known
pattern (x & -x); its usage is wrapped by the ISOLATE_LSB macro.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini
Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini
---
Changes in v4:
- Changed macro name.
Changes in v5:
- Changed macro name
