Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 7 Sep 2022 10:50:47 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        llvm@lists.linux.dev, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
        Christophe Jaillet <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] x86/asm/bitops: __ffs,ffz: use __builtin_ctzl to
 evaluate constant expressions
Message-ID: <YxhbXE0lWtyNtRHh@nazgul.tnic>
References: <YwT+5GGCOKoTjfQZ@zn.tnic>
 <CAKwvOdnc-Js8x4sv0j23crtYP73sRkNexom5ydm=r=8rYgc_5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <YwUR35I7+5JbLvMM@zn.tnic>
 <CAMZ6Rq+-Ld41cXt+Qy3a7nkQrDp3RK-BJYW0j=HCyKH-x9S3tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YwXkuW3rSYY7ZJT+@zn.tnic>
 <CAMZ6RqLugOnskOpyUS6OjdcdnwoXz-E8Bsw2qNaabDPYJ=139A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YwYmpK40ju5WUlVZ@zn.tnic>
 <CAMZ6RqJSdbbpFw7iZBqmADY0cAhjzFkpqs+VWCfFM_P0P-wH6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <YxgY2MBmBIkBsdlu@nazgul.tnic>
 <CAMZ6Rq+Uo4r9DXsOTgEhNEv7wWkHjBnU0498+1++qaD+4WCPKw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMZ6Rq+Uo4r9DXsOTgEhNEv7wWkHjBnU0498+1++qaD+4WCPKw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 02:35:41PM +0900, Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> I rephrased the beginning of the commit message as below:
> 
> 
> If x is not 0, __ffs(x) is equivalent to:
>   (unsigned long)__builtin_ctzl(x)
> And if x is not ~0UL, ffz(x) is equivalent to:
>   (unsigned long)__builtin_ctzl(~x)
> Because __builting_ctzl() returns an int, a cast to (unsigned long) is
> necessary to avoid potential warnings on implicit casts.
> 
> Concerning the edge cases, __builtin_ctzl(0) is always undefined,
> whereas __ffs(0) and ffz(~0UL) may or may not be defined, depending on
> the processor. Regardless, for both functions, developers are asked to
> check against 0 or ~0UL so replacing __ffs() or ffz() by
> __builting_ctzl() is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this solve the issue?

Yes, that sounds better.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette