Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756391AbYLDC4k (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:56:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751420AbYLDC4a (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:56:30 -0500 Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:47101 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751351AbYLDC4a (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:56:30 -0500 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.386 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:56:27 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Rusty Russell Cc: Randy Dunlap , Andrew Morton , Russell King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell , Alan Cox Subject: Re: Yet more ARM breakage in linux-next Message-ID: <20081203185627.64fdb0fc@extreme> In-Reply-To: <200812041157.15355.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> References: <20081203192905.GA12502@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <200812040952.44957.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <49371848.2080804@oracle.com> <200812041157.15355.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Organization: Vyatta X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.9; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1484 Lines: 38 On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:57:14 +1030 Rusty Russell wrote: > On Thursday 04 December 2008 10:07:44 Randy Dunlap wrote: > > Rusty Russell wrote: > > > (Yes, classic useless kerneldoc documentation doesn't actually *say* > > > this clearly). > > > > oh fud. That's not a fault of kernel-doc, just of whoever wrote it. > > It's only as good as someone makes it. > > Sorry that this came out wrong. kernel-doc provides structure, but it can't > provide content. And authors seem unable to think from the POV of someone > *using* the API. > > With some work, I tracked it back to Stephen Hemminger for this comment in > 12d9c8420b9daa1da3d9e090640fb24bcd0deba2. It's since been fixed and moved, > but it's still: > > * __fls: find last set bit in word > * @word: The word to search > * > * Undefined if no set bit exists, so code should check against 0 first. > > Which would be *fine* if fls() didn't have such confusing bit numbering and > the exact same one-line description. > > Thanks, > Rusty. I think the idea was that fls was supposed to match ffs which had stupid bit numbering inherited from BSD. and __ffs and __fls were same but undefined if word is 0 so that they could just be one line asm. -- 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/