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;
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:30:26 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.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
Subject: Re: [v2 1/5] lib/bitmap: add bitmap_{set,get}_value_unaligned()
Message-ID: <ZLE/4ihjymUbtXj6@smile.fi.intel.com>
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>
 <CAG_fn=XFBFByn7i1aw69rttJK9GZWSge81aa8yTK=qFZYAE7AQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAG_fn=XFBFByn7i1aw69rttJK9GZWSge81aa8yTK=qFZYAE7AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

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