[RFC+CFT] Use word operations in bitops

[u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe Kleine-König)]

Hi Russell,

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:46:18AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:08:57AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:19:11PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > This does need a fair amount of testing before it can be merged, so I'd
> > > like to see a number of Tested-by's against this patch.  Please also
> > > indicate whether you tested on LE or BE or both, which filesystems, and
> > > whether they were read-only mounted or read-write mounted.
> > You could make life a bit easier (at least for us at Pengutronix,
> > probably more) if you had a branch with a defined name for patches like
> > these.  We could add that to our daily test then.
> 
> No, because then it's not possible to properly tie down what has been
> tested and what hasn't.
> 
> The advantage of emailed patches is that when people reply to them, you
> have a better idea that the patch to which they're replying to is the
> one they tested.
> 
> Such as in this case where the follow-up patch hasn't received any
> replies, and so I can't add the one received tested-by to the follow-up
> patch.  With the git approach, I wouldn't know what was tested unless
> you included the commit IDs each time.
> 
> And let's face it - if it was tested daily, are you going to go through
> the hastle of digging out the commit IDs and emailing each day to say
> what was tested?  That sounds to me like a _lot_ more work than testing
> the occasional emailed patch.
I maybe wouldn't report each success, I would report if my test fails.
You can consider this more or less valuable. Still I think given the
ease this could be done it's worth it.

That's how linux-next works, too.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |