Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756074AbXJYV1k (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:27:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753053AbXJYV1c (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:27:32 -0400 Received: from xenotime.net ([66.160.160.81]:40566 "HELO xenotime.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753035AbXJYV1b (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:27:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:27:24 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: Andrew Morton Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Andy Whitcroft Subject: [PATCH] x86 bitops: fix code style issues Message-Id: <20071025142724.71d184ba.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: <20071025134814.caced2e3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20071023220959.a359d57d.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <200710241800.19764.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20071025093159.3ea69d03.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20071025095540.827d4333.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20071025134814.caced2e3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Organization: YPO4 X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.6 (GTK+ 2.8.10; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 8237 Lines: 230 From: Randy Dunlap Coding style cleanups: - change __inline__ to inline; - drop space in "* addr" parameters; - drop space between func. name and '(' The "volatile" keywords are correct according to email from one Linus Torvalds. [Several other arches need some of this also.] Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap --- include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) --- linux-2.6.24-rc1.orig/include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h +++ linux-2.6.24-rc1/include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ * Note that @nr may be almost arbitrarily large; this function is not * restricted to acting on a single-word quantity. */ -static __inline__ void set_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline void set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { __asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX "btsl %1,%0" @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static __inline__ void set_bit(int nr, v * If it's called on the same region of memory simultaneously, the effect * may be that only one operation succeeds. */ -static __inline__ void __set_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline void __set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { __asm__ volatile( "btsl %1,%0" @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ static __inline__ void __set_bit(int nr, * you should call smp_mb__before_clear_bit() and/or smp_mb__after_clear_bit() * in order to ensure changes are visible on other processors. */ -static __inline__ void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline void clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { __asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX "btrl %1,%0" @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ static inline void clear_bit_unlock(unsi clear_bit(nr, addr); } -static __inline__ void __clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline void __clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { __asm__ __volatile__( "btrl %1,%0" @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ static inline void __clear_bit_unlock(un * If it's called on the same region of memory simultaneously, the effect * may be that only one operation succeeds. */ -static __inline__ void __change_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline void __change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { __asm__ __volatile__( "btcl %1,%0" @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ static __inline__ void __change_bit(int * Note that @nr may be almost arbitrarily large; this function is not * restricted to acting on a single-word quantity. */ -static __inline__ void change_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline void change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { __asm__ __volatile__( LOCK_PREFIX "btcl %1,%0" @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ static __inline__ void change_bit(int nr * This operation is atomic and cannot be reordered. * It also implies a memory barrier. */ -static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { int oldbit; @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit(i * * This is the same as test_and_set_bit on x86. */ -static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile void *addr) +static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile void *addr) { return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr); } @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit_l * If two examples of this operation race, one can appear to succeed * but actually fail. You must protect multiple accesses with a lock. */ -static __inline__ int __test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline int __test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { int oldbit; @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static __inline__ int __test_and_set_bit * This operation is atomic and cannot be reordered. * It also implies a memory barrier. */ -static __inline__ int test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline int test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { int oldbit; @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static __inline__ int test_and_clear_bit * If two examples of this operation race, one can appear to succeed * but actually fail. You must protect multiple accesses with a lock. */ -static __inline__ int __test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline int __test_and_clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { int oldbit; @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ static __inline__ int __test_and_clear_b } /* WARNING: non atomic and it can be reordered! */ -static __inline__ int __test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline int __test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { int oldbit; @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ static __inline__ int __test_and_change_ * This operation is atomic and cannot be reordered. * It also implies a memory barrier. */ -static __inline__ int test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile void * addr) +static inline int test_and_change_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr) { int oldbit; @@ -276,15 +276,15 @@ static __inline__ int test_and_change_bi * @nr: bit number to test * @addr: Address to start counting from */ -static int test_bit(int nr, const volatile void * addr); +static int test_bit(int nr, const volatile void *addr); #endif -static __inline__ int constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile void * addr) +static inline int constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile void *addr) { return ((1UL << (nr & 31)) & (((const volatile unsigned int *) addr)[nr >> 5])) != 0; } -static __inline__ int variable_test_bit(int nr, volatile const void * addr) +static inline int variable_test_bit(int nr, volatile const void *addr) { int oldbit; @@ -302,10 +302,10 @@ static __inline__ int variable_test_bit( #undef ADDR -extern long find_first_zero_bit(const unsigned long * addr, unsigned long size); -extern long find_next_zero_bit (const unsigned long * addr, long size, long offset); -extern long find_first_bit(const unsigned long * addr, unsigned long size); -extern long find_next_bit(const unsigned long * addr, long size, long offset); +extern long find_first_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size); +extern long find_next_zero_bit(const unsigned long *addr, long size, long offset); +extern long find_first_bit(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size); +extern long find_next_bit(const unsigned long *addr, long size, long offset); /* return index of first bet set in val or max when no bit is set */ static inline long __scanbit(unsigned long val, unsigned long max) @@ -366,7 +366,7 @@ static inline void __clear_bit_string(un * * Undefined if no zero exists, so code should check against ~0UL first. */ -static __inline__ unsigned long ffz(unsigned long word) +static inline unsigned long ffz(unsigned long word) { __asm__("bsfq %1,%0" :"=r" (word) @@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ static __inline__ unsigned long ffz(unsi * * Undefined if no bit exists, so code should check against 0 first. */ -static __inline__ unsigned long __ffs(unsigned long word) +static inline unsigned long __ffs(unsigned long word) { __asm__("bsfq %1,%0" :"=r" (word) @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ static __inline__ unsigned long __ffs(un * * Undefined if no zero exists, so code should check against ~0UL first. */ -static __inline__ unsigned long __fls(unsigned long word) +static inline unsigned long __fls(unsigned long word) { __asm__("bsrq %1,%0" :"=r" (word) @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ static __inline__ unsigned long __fls(un * the libc and compiler builtin ffs routines, therefore * differs in spirit from the above ffz (man ffs). */ -static __inline__ int ffs(int x) +static inline int ffs(int x) { int r; @@ -430,7 +430,7 @@ static __inline__ int ffs(int x) * * This is defined the same way as fls. */ -static __inline__ int fls64(__u64 x) +static inline int fls64(__u64 x) { if (x == 0) return 0; @@ -443,7 +443,7 @@ static __inline__ int fls64(__u64 x) * * This is defined the same way as ffs. */ -static __inline__ int fls(int x) +static inline int fls(int x) { int r; - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/