Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-61784-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:01:38 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@linux.dev>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 RESEND 3/6] bitmap: Make bitmap_onto() available to
 users
Message-ID: <ZcokwpMb6SFWhLBB@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240212075646.19114-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com>
 <20240212075646.19114-4-herve.codina@bootlin.com>
 <ZcoOpPb9HfXOYmAr@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20240212143753.620ddd6e@bootlin.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240212143753.620ddd6e@bootlin.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:27:16 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:56:31AM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> > > Currently the bitmap_onto() is available only for CONFIG_NUMA=y case,
> > > while some users may benefit out of it and being independent to NUMA
> > > code.
> > > 
> > > Make it available to users by moving out of ifdeffery and exporting for
> > > modules.  
> > 
> > Wondering if you are trying to have something like
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230926052007.3917389-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/
> 
> Yes, it looks like.
> Can you confirm that your bitmap_scatter() do the same operations as the
> existing bitmap_onto() ?

I have test cases to be 100% sure, but on the first glance, yes it does with
the adjustment to the atomicity of the operations (which I do not understand
why be atomic in the original bitmap_onto() implementation).

This actually gives a question if we should use your approach or mine.
At least the help of bitmap_onto() is kinda hard to understand.

> If so, your bitmap_gather() will match my bitmap_off() (patch 4 in this
> series).

Yes.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko