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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: brcmstb: Declare a bitmap as a bitmap, not as a
 plain 'unsigned long'
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Krzysztof_Wilczy=c5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc:     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
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>
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fd853199-6400-000f-1472-3bd6de0662c4@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 15:45:10 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YYmzDSjLgmx9bQQs@rocinante>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/8/21 3:30 PM, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> [...]
>>>> 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.
-- 
Florian