s390/bitops: remove 31 bit related comments

Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>

diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h
index 47bd087..8043f10 100644 (file)
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/bitops.h
@@ -11,30 +11,25 @@
  * big-endian system because, unlike little endian, the number of each
  * bit depends on the word size.
  *
- * The bitop functions are defined to work on unsigned longs, so for an
- * s390x system the bits end up numbered:
+ * The bitop functions are defined to work on unsigned longs, so the bits
+ * end up numbered:
  *   |63..............0|127............64|191...........128|255...........192|
- * and on s390:
- *   |31.....0|63....32|95....64|127...96|159..128|191..160|223..192|255..224|
  *
  * There are a few little-endian macros used mostly for filesystem
- * bitmaps, these work on similar bit arrays layouts, but
- * byte-oriented:
+ * bitmaps, these work on similar bit array layouts, but byte-oriented:
  *   |7...0|15...8|23...16|31...24|39...32|47...40|55...48|63...56|
  *
- * The main difference is that bit 3-5 (64b) or 3-4 (32b) in the bit
- * number field needs to be reversed compared to the big-endian bit
- * fields. This can be achieved by XOR with 0x38 (64b) or 0x18 (32b).
+ * The main difference is that bit 3-5 in the bit number field needs to be
+ * reversed compared to the big-endian bit fields. This can be achieved by
+ * XOR with 0x38.
  *
- * We also have special functions which work with an MSB0 encoding:
- * on an s390x system the bits are numbered:
+ * We also have special functions which work with an MSB0 encoding.
+ * The bits are numbered:
  *   |0..............63|64............127|128...........191|192...........255|
- * and on s390:
- *   |0.....31|32....63|64....95|96...127|128..159|160..191|192..223|224..255|
  *
- * The main difference is that bit 0-63 (64b) or 0-31 (32b) in the bit
- * number field needs to be reversed compared to the LSB0 encoded bit
- * fields. This can be achieved by XOR with 0x3f (64b) or 0x1f (32b).
+ * The main difference is that bit 0-63 in the bit number field needs to be
+ * reversed compared to the LSB0 encoded bit fields. This can be achieved by
+ * XOR with 0x3f.
  *
  */
 
@@ -299,10 +294,8 @@ static inline void __clear_bit_unlock(unsigned long nr,
 
 /*
  * Functions which use MSB0 bit numbering.
- * On an s390x system the bits are numbered:
+ * The bits are numbered:
  *   |0..............63|64............127|128...........191|192...........255|
- * and on s390:
- *   |0.....31|32....63|64....95|96...127|128..159|160..191|192..223|224..255|
  */
 unsigned long find_first_bit_inv(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size);
 unsigned long find_next_bit_inv(const unsigned long *addr, unsigned long size,

diff --git a/arch/s390/lib/find.c b/arch/s390/lib/find.c
index 922003c..d90b924 100644 (file)
--- a/arch/s390/lib/find.c
+++ b/arch/s390/lib/find.c
@@ -1,10 +1,8 @@
 /*
  * MSB0 numbered special bitops handling.
  *
- * On s390x the bits are numbered:
+ * The bits are numbered:
  *   |0..............63|64............127|128...........191|192...........255|
- * and on s390:
- *   |0.....31|32....63|64....95|96...127|128..159|160..191|192..223|224..255|
  *
  * The reason for this bit numbering is the fact that the hardware sets bits
  * in a bitmap starting at bit 0 (MSB) and we don't want to scan the bitmap