Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 9 Nov 2021 00:55:36 +0100
From:   Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>,
        nsaenz@kernel.org, jim2101024@gmail.com,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com,
        robh@kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com,
        linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: brcmstb: Declare a bitmap as a bitmap, not as a
 plain 'unsigned long'
Message-ID: <YYm4+AEffI96KN1l@rocinante>
References: <e6d9da2112aab2939d1507b90962d07bfd735b4c.1636273671.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
 <YYh+ldT5wU2s0sWY@rocinante>
 <4d556ac3-b936-b99c-5a50-9add8607047d@gmail.com>
 <4997ef3c-5867-7ce0-73a2-f4381cf0879b@wanadoo.fr>
 <YYmzDSjLgmx9bQQs@rocinante>
 <fd853199-6400-000f-1472-3bd6de0662c4@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fd853199-6400-000f-1472-3bd6de0662c4@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Florian,

[...]
> >>>> Jim, Florian and Lorenzo - is this something that would be OK with you,
> >>>> or you would rather keep things as they were?
> >>>
> >>> I would be tempted to leave the code as-is, but if we do we are probably
> >>> bound to seeing patches like Christophe's in the future to address the
> >>
> >> Even if I don't find this report in the Coverity database, it should from
> >> around April 2018.
> >> So, if you have not already received several patches for that, I doubt that
> >> you will receive many in the future.
> >>
> >>
> >> My own feeling is that using a long (and not a long *) as a bitmap, and
> >> accessing it with &long may look spurious to a reader.
> >> That said, it works.
> >>
> >> So, I let you decide if the patch is of any use. Should I need to tweak or
> >> resend it, let me know.
> > 
> > I would be pro taking it, not only to addresses the Coverity complaint, but
> > also to align the code with other drivers a little bit more.  Only if
> > the driver maintainers have no objection, that is.
> 
> Driver consistency is a strong argument, fine with me then.

Thank you!

	Krzysztof