x86: bitops take an unsigned long *
All (or most) other architectures do this. So should x86. Fix.
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
diff --git a/include/asm-x86/bitops.h b/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
index ee4b3ea..7d2494b 100644
--- a/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
+++ b/include/asm-x86/bitops.h
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "bts %1,%0" : ADDR : "Ir" (nr) : "memory");
}
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
asm volatile("bts %1,%0" : ADDR : "Ir" (nr) : "memory");
}
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@
* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "btr %1,%0" : ADDR : "Ir" (nr));
}
@@ -85,13 +85,13 @@
* clear_bit() is atomic and implies release semantics before the memory
* operation. It can be used for an unlock.
*/
-static inline void clear_bit_unlock(unsigned nr, volatile void *addr)
+static inline void clear_bit_unlock(unsigned nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
barrier();
clear_bit(nr, addr);
}
-static inline void __clear_bit(int nr, volatile void *addr)
+static inline void __clear_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
asm volatile("btr %1,%0" : ADDR : "Ir" (nr));
}
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@
* No memory barrier is required here, because x86 cannot reorder stores past
* older loads. Same principle as spin_unlock.
*/
-static inline void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned nr, volatile void *addr)
+static inline void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
barrier();
__clear_bit(nr, addr);
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@
* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
asm volatile("btc %1,%0" : ADDR : "Ir" (nr));
}
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@
* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "btc %1,%0" : ADDR : "Ir" (nr));
}
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@
* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@
*
* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
}
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@
* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@
* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@
* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@
}
/* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -255,7 +255,7 @@
* 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 unsigned long *addr)
{
int oldbit;
@@ -266,13 +266,13 @@
return oldbit;
}
-static inline int constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile void *addr)
+static inline int constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
{
return ((1UL << (nr % BITS_PER_LONG)) &
(((unsigned long *)addr)[nr / BITS_PER_LONG])) != 0;
}
-static inline int variable_test_bit(int nr, volatile const void *addr)
+static inline int variable_test_bit(int nr, volatile const unsigned long *addr)
{
int oldbit;