[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAH8bW8MKh7LjsJ-9jaCRoTGFKSK_0+Gh5RuzVu-sMCO76=Oxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 14:25:56 -0800
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-SH <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>,
"Ma, Jianpeng" <jianpeng.ma@...el.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] bits_per_long.h: introduce SMALL_CONST() macro
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 1:11 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:49 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Many algorithms become simplier if they are passed with relatively small
>
> simpler
>
> > input values. One example is bitmap operations when the whole bitmap fits
> > into one word. To implement such simplifications, linux/bitmap.h declares
> > small_const_nbits() macro.
> >
> > Other subsystems may also benefit from optimizations of this sort, like
> > find_bit API in the following patches. So it looks helpful to generalize
> > the macro and extend it's visibility.
>
> > It should probably go to linux/kernel.h, but doing that creates circular
> > dependencies. So put it in asm-generic/bitsperlong.h.
[]
> > diff --git a/tools/include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h b/tools/include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h
> > index 8f2283052333..432d272baf27 100644
> > --- a/tools/include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h
> > +++ b/tools/include/asm-generic/bitsperlong.h
>
> I think a tools update would be better to have in a separate patch.
Do you mean a single sync-patch for all tools/*, or doubling the
patchset by splitting each patch
to tools and kernel parts? Why is it any better than I have now?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists