From: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Allow assembly code to use BIT(), GENMASK(), etc. and clean-up arm64 header
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 18:01:10 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK7LNAQJPMsRtNRYUH+dib0ZMAPqOe5HO0UcAW7zRdjyWWyQWQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190605073406.geesp3rbrxajmac6@mbp>
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:36 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 05:34:10PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > Some in-kernel headers use _BITUL() instead of BIT().
> >
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> > arch/s390/include/asm/*.h
> >
> > I think the reason is because BIT() is currently not available
> > in assembly. It hard-codes 1UL, which is not available in assembly.
> [...]
> > Masahiro Yamada (2):
> > linux/bits.h: make BIT(), GENMASK(), and friends available in assembly
> > arm64: replace _BITUL() with BIT()
> >
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 82 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
> > include/linux/bits.h | 17 ++++---
>
> I'm not sure it's worth the hassle. It's nice to have the same BIT macro
> but a quick grep shows arc, arm64, s390 and x86 using _BITUL. Maybe a
> tree-wide clean-up would be more appropriate.
I am happy to clean-up the others
in the next development cycle
once 1/2 lands in the mainline.
Since there is no subsystem that
takes care of include/linux/bits.h,
I just asked Will to pick up both.
I planed per-arch patch submission
to reduce the possibility of merge conflict.
If you guys are not willing to pick up them,
is it better to send treewide conversion to Andrew?
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-05 9:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-27 8:34 [PATCH 0/2] Allow assembly code to use BIT(), GENMASK(), etc. and clean-up arm64 header Masahiro Yamada
2019-05-27 8:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] linux/bits.h: make BIT(), GENMASK(), and friends available in assembly Masahiro Yamada
2019-06-11 15:47 ` Will Deacon
2019-05-27 8:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: replace _BITUL() with BIT() Masahiro Yamada
2019-06-11 15:48 ` Will Deacon
2019-06-05 6:19 ` [PATCH 0/2] Allow assembly code to use BIT(), GENMASK(), etc. and clean-up arm64 header Masahiro Yamada
2019-06-05 7:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-05 9:01 ` Masahiro Yamada [this message]
2019-06-11 15:49 ` 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=CAK7LNAQJPMsRtNRYUH+dib0ZMAPqOe5HO0UcAW7zRdjyWWyQWQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).