All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/9] asm-generic: Move some macros from linux/bitops.h to a new bits.h file
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:43:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180711094326.GB13963@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180709151006.370112d321c8f3df06bf231b@linux-foundation.org>

Hi again, Andrew,

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:10:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:32:51 +0100 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 05:30:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:53:08 +0100 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In preparation for implementing the asm-generic atomic bitops in terms
> > > > of atomic_long_*, we need to prevent asm/atomic.h implementations from
> > > > pulling in linux/bitops.h. A common reason for this include is for the
> > > > BITS_PER_BYTE definition, so move this and some other BIT() and masking
> > > > macros into a new header file, linux/bits.h
> > > > 
> > > > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
> > > > @@ -2,29 +2,9 @@
> > > >  #ifndef _LINUX_BITOPS_H
> > > >  #define _LINUX_BITOPS_H
> > > >  #include <asm/types.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/bits.h>
> > > >  
> > > > -#ifdef	__KERNEL__
> > > > -#define BIT(nr)			(1UL << (nr))
> > > > -#define BIT_ULL(nr)		(1ULL << (nr))
> > > > -#define BIT_MASK(nr)		(1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG))
> > > > -#define BIT_WORD(nr)		((nr) / BITS_PER_LONG)
> > > > -#define BIT_ULL_MASK(nr)	(1ULL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG_LONG))
> > > > -#define BIT_ULL_WORD(nr)	((nr) / BITS_PER_LONG_LONG)
> > > > -#define BITS_PER_BYTE		8
> > > >  #define BITS_TO_LONGS(nr)	DIV_ROUND_UP(nr, BITS_PER_BYTE * sizeof(long))
> > > > -#endif
> > > 
> > > Why does it leave BITS_TO_LONGS() in place?
> > > 
> > > That becomes unfortunate with Chris's patch, so I'm moving
> > > BITS_TO_LONGS() into bits.h.
> > 
> > The reason I avoided that was because it would pull in the dreaded
> > kernel.h for DIV_ROUND_UP, and then we're back to circular include hell :(
> > 
> 
> Well we should comment that so every reader doesn't wonder what I
> wondered.
> 
> Refactoring works well.  I suppose DIV_ROUND_UP and friends await a new
> <arithmacros.h>.

Yes; pulling apart kernel.h would certainly help solve some of the fragility
here.

> Also, all these macros no longer `#ifdef __KERNEL__' protection, which
> wasn't mentioned in the changelog.  Deliberate?

Yes, these aren't under uapi/ so I dropped the guards now that they're not
needed (my understanding is that they're only there because of the way the
uapi split was originally scripted). I can also confirm that the generated
user headers match exactly with and without my changes.

Will

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	mingo@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	yamada.masahiro@socionext.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/9] asm-generic: Move some macros from linux/bitops.h to a new bits.h file
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:43:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180711094326.GB13963@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180709151006.370112d321c8f3df06bf231b@linux-foundation.org>

Hi again, Andrew,

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 03:10:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 12:32:51 +0100 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 05:30:49PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:53:08 +0100 Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In preparation for implementing the asm-generic atomic bitops in terms
> > > > of atomic_long_*, we need to prevent asm/atomic.h implementations from
> > > > pulling in linux/bitops.h. A common reason for this include is for the
> > > > BITS_PER_BYTE definition, so move this and some other BIT() and masking
> > > > macros into a new header file, linux/bits.h
> > > > 
> > > > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
> > > > @@ -2,29 +2,9 @@
> > > >  #ifndef _LINUX_BITOPS_H
> > > >  #define _LINUX_BITOPS_H
> > > >  #include <asm/types.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/bits.h>
> > > >  
> > > > -#ifdef	__KERNEL__
> > > > -#define BIT(nr)			(1UL << (nr))
> > > > -#define BIT_ULL(nr)		(1ULL << (nr))
> > > > -#define BIT_MASK(nr)		(1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG))
> > > > -#define BIT_WORD(nr)		((nr) / BITS_PER_LONG)
> > > > -#define BIT_ULL_MASK(nr)	(1ULL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG_LONG))
> > > > -#define BIT_ULL_WORD(nr)	((nr) / BITS_PER_LONG_LONG)
> > > > -#define BITS_PER_BYTE		8
> > > >  #define BITS_TO_LONGS(nr)	DIV_ROUND_UP(nr, BITS_PER_BYTE * sizeof(long))
> > > > -#endif
> > > 
> > > Why does it leave BITS_TO_LONGS() in place?
> > > 
> > > That becomes unfortunate with Chris's patch, so I'm moving
> > > BITS_TO_LONGS() into bits.h.
> > 
> > The reason I avoided that was because it would pull in the dreaded
> > kernel.h for DIV_ROUND_UP, and then we're back to circular include hell :(
> > 
> 
> Well we should comment that so every reader doesn't wonder what I
> wondered.
> 
> Refactoring works well.  I suppose DIV_ROUND_UP and friends await a new
> <arithmacros.h>.

Yes; pulling apart kernel.h would certainly help solve some of the fragility
here.

> Also, all these macros no longer `#ifdef __KERNEL__' protection, which
> wasn't mentioned in the changelog.  Deliberate?

Yes, these aren't under uapi/ so I dropped the guards now that they're not
needed (my understanding is that they're only there because of the way the
uapi split was originally scripted). I can also confirm that the generated
user headers match exactly with and without my changes.

Will

  reply	other threads:[~2018-07-11  9:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-19 12:53 [RESEND PATCH v2 0/9] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic, lock}.h and use on arm64 Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 0/9] Rewrite asm-generic/bitops/{atomic,lock}.h " Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 1/9] h8300: Don't include linux/kernel.h in asm/atomic.h Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53   ` Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 2/9] m68k: Don't use asm-generic/bitops/lock.h Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53   ` Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 3/9] asm-generic: Move some macros from linux/bitops.h to a new bits.h file Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53   ` Will Deacon
2018-07-07  0:30   ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-07  0:30     ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-09 11:32     ` Will Deacon
2018-07-09 11:32       ` Will Deacon
2018-07-09 22:10       ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-09 22:10         ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-11  9:43         ` Will Deacon [this message]
2018-07-11  9:43           ` Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 4/9] openrisc: Don't pull in all of linux/bitops.h in asm/cmpxchg.h Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53   ` Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 5/9] sh: Don't pull in all of linux/bitops.h in asm/cmpxchg-xchg.h Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53   ` Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 6/9] asm-generic/bitops/atomic.h: Rewrite using atomic_* Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53   ` Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 7/9] asm-generic/bitops/lock.h: Rewrite using atomic_fetch_* Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53   ` Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 8/9] arm64: Replace our atomic/lock bitop implementations with asm-generic Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53   ` Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53 ` [RESEND PATCH v2 9/9] arm64: bitops: Include <asm-generic/bitops/ext2-atomic-setbit.h> Will Deacon
2018-06-19 12:53   ` Will Deacon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180711094326.GB13963@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.