[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <99B58F85-CC9C-49F6-9A34-B8A59CABE162@toblux.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 13:45:28 +0200
From: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...lux.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Amadeusz Sławiński <amadeuszx.slawinski@...ux.intel.com>,
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 22. Apr 2024, at 17:55, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> 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.
Ok.
I would still prefer to keep this patch free from arch-specific changes, if
possible. The patch improves architectures that use the generic bitops
functions (e.g., arm64) and doesn't impact any arch-specific implementations,
unless I'm missing something.
Thanks,
Thorsten
Powered by blists - more mailing lists