Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-61829-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:36:36 +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: <Zcos9F3ZCX5c936p@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>
 <ZcokwpMb6SFWhLBB@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20240212152022.75b10268@bootlin.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240212152022.75b10268@bootlin.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 03:20:22PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:01:38 +0200
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

..

> Agree, the bitmap_onto() code is simpler to understand than its help.
> 
> I introduced bitmap_off() to be the "reverse" bitmap_onto() operations
> and I preferred to avoid duplicating function that do the same things.
> 
> On my side, I initially didn't use the bitmap_*() functions and did the the
> bits manipulation by hand.
> During the review, it was suggested to use the bitmap_*() family and I followed
> this suggestion.

I also would go this way, the problems I see with the current implementation are:
- being related to NUMA (and as Rasmus once pointed out better to be there);
- unclear naming, esp. proposed bitmap_off();
- the quite hard to understand help text
- atomicity when it's not needed (AFAICT).

> I did tests to be sure that bitmap_onto() and bitmap_off() did
> exactly the same things as my previous code did.

Yuri, what do you think about all this?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko