Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752475AbcDOQTZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2016 12:19:25 -0400 Received: from m12-16.163.com ([220.181.12.16]:51182 "EHLO m12-16.163.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751366AbcDOQTY (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2016 12:19:24 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] blackfin: optimize ffz, __ffs, ffs, __fls, and fls functions To: Joe Perches , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1460706724-15953-1-git-send-email-zengzhaoxiu@163.com> <1460733645-77406-1-git-send-email-zengzhaoxiu@163.com> <1460736514.19090.32.camel@perches.com> Cc: Zeng Zhaoxiu , Steven Miao , adi-buildroot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net From: Zhaoxiu Zeng Message-ID: <57111463.9090109@163.com> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2016 00:18:43 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1460736514.19090.32.camel@perches.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID: EMCowAD3ftdkFBFXtVZJAg--.17770S3 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvdXoW7Xr1kXw13WF1rGFykJF17Awb_yoW3ZrX_Cw srJ34Duwn09w4kur97GrnFyFy3Ca4rAr1UWF95Za4xA3s7CasruFZ5J34Fy34DGa9akFy3 WF18Z3WxCFyFkjkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IUnCeHDUUUUU== X-Originating-IP: [14.215.39.229] X-CM-SenderInfo: p2hqw6xkdr5xrx6rljoofrz/1tbivwdMgFWBRTM-UAAAs5 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 792 Lines: 24 在 2016/4/16 0:08, Joe Perches 写道: > On Fri, 2016-04-15 at 23:20 +0800, zengzhaoxiu@163.com wrote: >> From: Zeng Zhaoxiu >> >> blackfin has popcount instruction (ONES), we can do the efficient >> computing (ffz, __ffs, ffs, __fls, and fls) use this instruction. > [] >> diff --git a/arch/blackfin/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/blackfin/include/asm/bitops.h > [] >> +static inline unsigned int __arch_hweight64(__u64 w) >> +{ >> + return __arch_hweight32((unsigned int)(w >> 32)) + >> + __arch_hweight32((unsigned int)w); >> +} > trivia: perhaps this is more readable as: > > return __arch_hweight32(upper_32_bits(w)) + > __arch_hweight32(lower_32_bits(w)); > > Yes. I just moved these codes from the bottom of bitops.h, didn't change anything.