On 15.05.2024 15:55, Oleksii K. wrote: > On Wed, 2024-05-15 at 11:09 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 06.05.2024 12:15, Oleksii Kurochko wrote: >>> Changes in V9: >>> - update return type of fls and flsl() to unsigned int to be >>> aligned with other >>> bit ops. >> >> But this then needs carrying through to ... >> >>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/arm64/bitops.h >>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/arm64/bitops.h >>> @@ -22,17 +22,15 @@ static /*__*/always_inline unsigned long >>> __ffs(unsigned long word) >>> */ >>> #define ffz(x) __ffs(~(x)) >>> >>> -static inline int flsl(unsigned long x) >>> +static inline int arch_flsl(unsigned long x) >> >> ... e.g. here. You don't want to introduce signed/unsigned >> mismatches. > Do you mean that generic flsl() uses 'unsigned int' as a return type, > but arch_flsl continue to use 'int'?
Yes. >> Also why do you keep "inline" here, while ... >> >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h >>> @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ static always_inline unsigned int >>> arch_ffsl(unsigned long x) >>> * >>> * This is defined the same way as ffs. >>> */ >>> -static inline int flsl(unsigned long x) >>> +static always_inline int arch_flsl(unsigned long x) >> >> ... you switch to always_inline here? > Because Adnrew's patch with bitops.h for x86 changes to always_inline, > so to be consistent, at least, for architecture. And why not extend this to Arm? Jan
