Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:30:26 +0300 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [v2 1/5] lib/bitmap: add bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned() |
| |
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 02:07:45PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wrote: > 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:
...
> > > > 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!
> 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).
Sounds good to me.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |