Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-67562-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 21:17:23 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
	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>,
	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: <Zc5jQ3zR51MDIovB@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>
 <Zcos9F3ZCX5c936p@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <Zcptyd/AWrDD3EAL@yury-ThinkPad>
 <20240215184612.438bd4f2@bootlin.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240215184612.438bd4f2@bootlin.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 06:46:12PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 11:13:13 -0800
> Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:

..

> > That's I agree. Scatter/gather from your last approach sound better.
> > Do you plan to send a v2?

See below.

..

> > I think your scatter/gather is better then this onto/off by naming and
> > implementation. If you'll send a v2, and it would work for Herve, I'd
> > prefer scatter/gather. But we can live with onto/off as well.
> 
> Andy, I tested your bitmap_{scatter,gather}() in my code.
> I simply replaced my bitmap_{onto,off}() calls by calls to your helpers and
> it works perfectly for my use case.
> 
> I didn't use your whole patch
>   "[PATCH v1 2/5] lib/bitmap: Introduce bitmap_scatter() and bitmap_gather() helpers"
> because it didn't apply on a v6.8-rc1 based branch.
> I just manually extracted the needed functions for my tests and I didn't look
> at the lib/test_bitmap.c part.
> 
> Now what's the plan ?
> Andy, do you want to send a v2 of this patch or may I get the patch, modify it
> according to reviews already present in v1 and integrate it in my current
> series ?

I would like to do that, but under pile of different things.
I would try my best but if you have enough time and motivation feel free
to take over, address the comments and integrate in your series.

I dunno what to do with bitmap_onto(), perhaps in a separate patch we can
replace it with bitmap_scatter() (IIUC) with explanation that the former
1) uses atomic ops while being non-atomic as a whole, and b) having quite
hard to get documentation. At least that's how I see it, I mean that I would
like to leave bitmap_onto() alone and address it separately.

> Yury, any preferences ?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko