Em Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:49:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra escreveu:

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:43:26PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:

quoted

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.

Well, I also can't think of something to justify that, would have to dig
deeper to figure out why that duplication was introduced.

Thanks, will queue this one up and be done with it. For the moment. :-)

- Arnaldo
 

quoted

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.