Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the luto-misc tree
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2016-07-15 15:49:42
Also in:
lkml
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2016-07-15 15:49:42
Also in:
lkml
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:43:26PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Ok, same results, it works, queuing this one, ack?
Sure. Although I'm still somewhat puzzled by the duplicated effort of __BITS_PER_LONG and BITS_PER_LONG.
commit a08cc3e6f7bb965672a3ff60f98d0dbbc5334ee7
Author: Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref]
Date: Fri Jul 15 12:38:18 2016 -0300
tools: Simplify BITS_PER_LONG define
Do it using (__CHAR_BIT__ * __SIZEOF_LONG__), simpler, works everywhere,
reduces the complexity by ditching CONFIG_64BIT, that was being
synthesized from yet another set of defines, which proved fragile,
breaking the build on linux-next for no obvious reasons.If you ever do need to introduce CONFIG_64BIT, __LP64__ seems like the right symbol to use for it.