[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190326101933.GW9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:19:33 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
Cc: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
bgolaszewski@...libre.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@...musvillemoes.dk,
yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
geert@...ux-m68k.org, preid@...ctromag.com.au,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 01/11] bitops: Introduce the for_each_set_clump8 macro
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 07:08:18PM +0900, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:43:45AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 12:14:22PM +0900, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > Why is it so complicated, does it allow passing in a start value
> > that's not a multiple of 8? Do you really need that? I imagine
> > a simplification is possible if that assumption can be made (and
> > is spelled out in the kerneldoc).
>
> That's a good point. Originally, I had envisioned the possibility of
> calling bitmap_get_value8/bitmap_set_value8 at odd start offsets; this
> would open up the possibility of a clump landing as a split between 2
> words, thus requiring this complicated case handling code. However, I'm
> not sure how often users would need this case; none of the drivers right
> now require clumps at odd offsets.
>
> Andy, would you have any objection to restricting the start offset
> values for bitmap_get_value8/bitmap_set_value8 to multiples of 8? That
> would prevent the split word case, and thus allow the implementation for
> those functions to be a lot simpler.
No, I have no objection.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists