Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:19:33 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To:     William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
Cc:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
        bgolaszewski@baylibre.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk,
        yamada.masahiro@socionext.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        geert@linux-m68k.org, preid@electromag.com.au,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 01/11] bitops: Introduce the for_each_set_clump8 macro
Message-ID: <20190326101933.GW9224@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <cover.1553494625.git.vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
 <9afc30a574ce3e6a86b51dd522146a1d2156dedd.1553494625.git.vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>
 <20190325093854.jzkkwaksxi7zvtrg@wunner.de>
 <20190326031422.GB3356@icarus>
 <20190326094345.v7l7xjvfs2scbvbv@wunner.de>
 <20190326100743.GA10005@icarus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190326100743.GA10005@icarus>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 07:08:18PM +0900, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:43:45AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 12:14:22PM +0900, William Breathitt Gray wrote:

> > Why is it so complicated, does it allow passing in a start value
> > that's not a multiple of 8?  Do you really need that?  I imagine
> > a simplification is possible if that assumption can be made (and
> > is spelled out in the kerneldoc).
> 
> That's a good point. Originally, I had envisioned the possibility of
> calling bitmap_get_value8/bitmap_set_value8 at odd start offsets; this
> would open up the possibility of a clump landing as a split between 2
> words, thus requiring this complicated case handling code. However, I'm
> not sure how often users would need this case; none of the drivers right
> now require clumps at odd offsets.
> 
> Andy, would you have any objection to restricting the start offset
> values for bitmap_get_value8/bitmap_set_value8 to multiples of 8? That
> would prevent the split word case, and thus allow the implementation for
> those functions to be a lot simpler.

No, I have no objection.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko