Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the luto-misc tree

From: Peter Zijlstra <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:49:30 +0200

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:43:26PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Ok, same results, it works, queuing this one, ack?

Sure. Although I'm still somewhat puzzled by the duplicated effort of
__BITS_PER_LONG and BITS_PER_LONG.

> commit a08cc3e6f7bb965672a3ff60f98d0dbbc5334ee7
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <[email-masked]>
> Date:   Fri Jul 15 12:38:18 2016 -0300
> 
>     tools: Simplify BITS_PER_LONG define
>     
>     Do it using (__CHAR_BIT__ * __SIZEOF_LONG__), simpler, works everywhere,
>     reduces the complexity by ditching CONFIG_64BIT, that was being
>     synthesized from yet another set of defines, which proved fragile,
>     breaking the build on linux-next for no obvious reasons.

If you ever do need to introduce CONFIG_64BIT, __LP64__ seems like the
right symbol to use for it.