Thread (30 messages) 30 messages, 15 authors, 2006-01-30

Re: [PATCH 1/6] {set,clear,test}_bit() related cleanup

From: Pavel Machek <hidden>
Date: 2006-01-26 16:15:13
Also in: linux-mips, linuxppc-dev, lkml

Hi!
While working on these patch set, I found several possible cleanup
on x86-64 and ia64.
It is probably not your fault, but...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Index: 2.6-git/include/asm-x86_64/mmu_context.h
=================================> --- 2.6-git.orig/include/asm-x86_64/mmu_context.h	2006-01-25 19:07:15.000000000 +0900
+++ 2.6-git/include/asm-x86_64/mmu_context.h	2006-01-25 19:13:59.000000000 +0900
@@ -34,12 +34,12 @@
 	unsigned cpu = smp_processor_id();
 	if (likely(prev != next)) {
 		/* stop flush ipis for the previous mm */
-		clear_bit(cpu, &prev->cpu_vm_mask);
+		cpu_clear(cpu, prev->cpu_vm_mask);
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 		write_pda(mmu_state, TLBSTATE_OK);
 		write_pda(active_mm, next);
 #endif
-		set_bit(cpu, &next->cpu_vm_mask);
+		cpu_set(cpu, next->cpu_vm_mask);
 		load_cr3(next->pgd);
 
 		if (unlikely(next->context.ldt != prev->context.ldt)) 
cpu_set sounds *very* ambiguous. We have thing called cpusets, for
example. I'd not guess that is set_bit in cpu endianity (is it?).

								Pavel
-- 
Thanks, Sharp!
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help