[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <e7e4ff27-ebb3-4ed6-a7cc-36c36ab90a36@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 17:55:33 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Thorsten Blum" <thorsten.blum@...lux.com>,
Amadeusz Sławiński <amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Xiao W Wang" <xiao.w.wang@...el.com>,
"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@...osinc.com>,
"Charlie Jenkins" <charlie@...osinc.com>,
"Namhyung Kim" <namhyung@...nel.org>, "Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
"Youling Tang" <tangyouling@...ngson.cn>,
"Tiezhu Yang" <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>, "Jinyang He" <hejinyang@...ngson.cn>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: Change function return types from long to int
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024, at 16:30, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> On 22. Apr 2024, at 09:44, Amadeusz Sławiński
> <amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't mind the idea, but in the past I've send some patches trying to align some arch specific implementations with asm-generic ones. Now you are changing only asm-generic implementation and leaving arch specific ones untouched (that's probably why you see no size change on some of them).
>
> I would submit architecture-specific changes in another patch set to keep it
> simple and to be able to review each arch separately.
I can generally merge such a series with architecture specific
changes through the asm-generic tree, with the appropriate Acks
from the maintainers.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists