Months back, this was discussed, see https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/18/289
The result was the 64-bit version being "likely fine", "valuable" and
"correct". The discussion fell asleep but since there are possible users,
let's add it.
Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger <martin.kepplinger@theobroma-systems.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@st.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
return (__s32)(value << shift) >> shift;
}
+/**
+ * sign_extend64 - sign extend a 64-bit value using specified bit as sign-bit
+ * @value: value to sign extend
+ * @index: 0 based bit index (0<=index<64) to sign bit
+ */
+static inline __s64 sign_extend64(__u64 value, int index)
+{
+ __u8 shift = 63 - index;
+ return (__s64)(value << shift) >> shift;
+}
+
static inline unsigned fls_long(unsigned long l)
{
if (sizeof(l) == 4)