linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] m68k: rename UL() to TO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 23 Feb 2018 01:58:29 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] m68k: rename UL() to TO_UL()

Hi Geert

2018-02-22 22:20 GMT+09:00 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>:
> Hi Yamada-san,
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Masahiro Yamada
> <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>> ARM, ARM64 and UniCore32 define UL(x) like follows:
>>   #define UL(x) _AC(x, UL)
>>
>> While, M68K defines it differently:
>>   #define UL(x) ((unsigned long) (x))
>>
>> I want to move the former to a common header.  Beforehand, this
>> commit renames the latter to avoid name conflict.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
>> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
>> ---
>> V2: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9498273/
>>
>> Changes in v3: None
>> Changes in v2:
>>  - Split out as a prerequisite patch
>>
>>  arch/m68k/mm/init.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/m68k/mm/init.c b/arch/m68k/mm/init.c
>> index e85acd1..583a8e5 100644
>> --- a/arch/m68k/mm/init.c
>> +++ b/arch/m68k/mm/init.c
>> @@ -122,9 +122,9 @@ void free_initmem(void)
>>
>>  void __init print_memmap(void)
>>  {
>> -#define UL(x) ((unsigned long) (x))
>> -#define MLK(b, t) UL(b), UL(t), (UL(t) - UL(b)) >> 10
>> -#define MLM(b, t) UL(b), UL(t), (UL(t) - UL(b)) >> 20
>> +#define TO_UL(x) ((unsigned long) (x))
>> +#define MLK(b, t) TO_UL(b), TO_UL(t), (TO_UL(t) - TO_UL(b)) >> 10
>> +#define MLM(b, t) TO_UL(b), TO_UL(t), (TO_UL(t) - TO_UL(b)) >> 20
>>  #define MLK_ROUNDUP(b, t) b, t, DIV_ROUND_UP(((t) - (b)), 1024)
>
> Please note that this code patch is scheduled for removal in v4.17, cfr.
> "[PATCH] m68k/mm: Stop printing the virtual memory layout"
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/2/12/97).
>


I see, but I do not see it in linux-next as of writing.


Without this prerequisite, 3/5 would cause a build error.
So, I needed to include it in this series.

I am hoping this series will be picked up by Andrew Morton.
In my understanding, he applies patches on top of the linux-next.


I think either will happen:

[1] If your patch appears in linux-next first,
    my 2/5 will be skipped, and the rest of the series will be applied.

[2] If my series is applied first,
    Andrew will drop 2/5 when your patch appears in linux-next
        (this is simply detected by patch conflict)


Andrew, please correct me if I am wrong.


Thanks!


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada