[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZL+PGXMOf18Kc5Cu@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 12:00:09 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, catalin.marinas@....com,
will@...nel.org, pcc@...gle.com, andreyknvl@...il.com,
linux@...musvillemoes.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, eugenis@...gle.com,
syednwaris@...il.com, william.gray@...aro.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] lib/bitmap: add bitmap_{set,get}_value()
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:04:34PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 11:36:36AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 06:57:23PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:39:52PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote:
...
> > > 'GENMASK(nbits - 1, 0) << offset' looks really silly.
> >
> > But you followed the thread to get a clue why it's written in this form, right?
>
> Yes, I did. But I don't expect everyone looking at kernel code would spend
> time recovering discussions that explain why that happened. So, at least it
> would be fine to drop a comment.
See also below.
...
> w = *map & (end < BITS_PER_LONG ? ~GENMASK(end, start) : BITMAP_LAST_WORD_MASK(start));
This GENMASK() may generate worse code as compiler uses more instructions
instead of simple approach with the above..
...
> bitmap_write - 271 +271
> my_bitmap_write - 248 +248
> bitmap_read - 229 +229
my_ -- means your proposal? Do you mean you have it better in size than original one?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists