Messages in this thread | | | From | Alexander Potapenko <> | Date | Fri, 14 Jul 2023 14:07:45 +0200 | Subject | Re: [v2 1/5] lib/bitmap: add bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned() |
| |
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 1:28 PM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 07:19:15AM -0400, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 11:04:16AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 08:05:34PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 7:29 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 02:57:01PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > > > > > > The two new functions allow setting/getting values of length up to > > > > > > BITS_PER_LONG bits at arbitrary position in the bitmap. > > > > > > > > > > A couple of years (?) ago it was a series to achieve something like this with > > > > > better (?) code. Why not resurrect that one? > > > > > > > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg2195426.html > > > > > > > > It looks more compact thanks to GENMASK, I can cook something based on > > > > the proposed bitmap_{set,get}_value (and change the names if you > > > > prefer the shorter ones). > > > > But I'd better avoid pulling in the rest of that series without a strong need. > > > > > > William, what do you think on this? > > > > > > I'm personally prefer William's version as not only it was published first > > > it was carefully designed and got a lot of review already. We just hadn't had > > > the user for it that time. > > > > Yes, that version went through several revisions so it's been well > > tested and known to work -- as you pointed out it just lacked the users > > to warrant merging it into the tree. If it statisfies the use-case > > required here now, then I think we should it pick it up rather than > > reinvent the solution again. > > > > Also, we probably don't need the "clump" code in there, so perhaps > > splitting it out to just the bitmap_{set,get}_value relevant code is > > fine. > > Agree, thank you for your comments! > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > > So would it be fine if I split off bitmap_set_value() and bitmap_get_value() from that series and send it (with the appropriate attribution) instead of my patch 1/5? We'll probably still need to retain patch 2/5 (with the function names changed).
| |