Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:32:58 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Wemm <peter@FreeBSD.org> To: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: PERFORCE change 43335 for review Message-ID: <200312030132.hB31WwQC092011@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=43335 Change 43335 by peter@peter_overcee on 2003/12/02 17:32:38 actually, since we've already checked for zero in the loop, directly call bsfq() rather than "ffsl() - 1". In theory, gcc -O should optimize out the mask == 0 case (already tested) and the "- 1 + 1", but dont depend on it. This is why we have RQB_FFS() exposed like this anyway. Affected files ... .. //depot/projects/hammer/sys/amd64/include/runq.h#6 edit Differences ... ==== //depot/projects/hammer/sys/amd64/include/runq.h#6 (text+ko) ==== @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ #define RQB_BIT(pri) (1 << ((pri) & (RQB_BPW - 1))) #define RQB_WORD(pri) ((pri) >> RQB_L2BPW) -#define RQB_FFS(word) (ffsl(word) - 1) +#define RQB_FFS(word) (bsfq(word)) /* * Type of run queue status word.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200312030132.hB31WwQC092011>