Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Aug 2022 06:37:45 -0700 | From | Yury Norov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] lib/find_bit: create find_first_zero_bit_le() |
| |
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 12:22:33PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 5:17 AM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > find_first_zero_bit_le() is an alias to find_next_zero_bit_le(), > > despite that 'next' is known to be slower than the 'first' version. > > > > Now that we have a common FIND_FIRST_BIT() macro helper, it's trivial > > to implement find_first_zero_bit_le() as a real function. > > > > Moving find_*_le() to a separate file helps to fit the FIND_FIRST_BIT() > > to the _le needs by wiring word_op to swab. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> > > --- > > Like other find_*_le() functions, the new one takes void *addr, instead > > of unsigned long *. This should be fixed for all in a separate series. > > From this comment it is unclear to me why we can't fix them first and > then apply this with the correct type?
Because there is a codebase that relies on existing types, mostly in filesystem code. And those fs fixes would require 5 or 6 patches.
This would triple the length of this series, and is completely unrelated. That's why I think that: > > This should be fixed for all in a separate series.
> ... > > > +#define word_op swab > > +#include "find_bit.h" > > Looking at this, I would rather always require to define __ffs_word_op > (or whatever name) in the user and replace #ifndef in the find_bit.h > with > #error "The __ffs_word_op must be defined before including find_bit.h!"
This is a local header which is not intended to be included anywhere except lib/find_bit{,_be}.c. I don't expect someone else would want to include it, even in lib. So what you suggest is a bit overthinking to me. But if you insist, I can do that.
Thanks, Yury
| |