Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230713125706.2884502-1-glider@google.com> <20230713125706.2884502-2-glider@google.com>
 <ZLA0TwHZOgAGCgKX@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAG_fn=WsPC_qMZfbVQHbXq_cGXP4ZfYkyGyJPzaAKSqurxoibw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZLEBgGSsmOPs4Zu5@smile.fi.intel.com> <ZLEvM1s65L1k0PTx@fedora> <ZLExRvCytbxBcUef@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZLExRvCytbxBcUef@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 14:07:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG_fn=XFBFByn7i1aw69rttJK9GZWSge81aa8yTK=qFZYAE7AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [v2 1/5] lib/bitmap: add bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned()
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     William Breathitt Gray <william.gray@linaro.org>,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, pcc@google.com,
        andreyknvl@gmail.com, linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk,
        yury.norov@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, eugenis@google.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 1:28=E2=80=AFPM 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=E2=80=AFPM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 02:57:01PM +0200, Alexander Potapenko wro=
te:
> > > > > > 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 li=
ke this with
> > > > > better (?) code. Why not resurrect that one?
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg2195=
426.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 s=
trong 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 ha=
dn'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 chan=
ged).