From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x242.google.com (mail-wm0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 428HDk47MYzF39Y for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 04:50:46 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wm0-x242.google.com with SMTP id y139-v6so22447444wmc.2 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:50:39 +0200 From: LABBE Corentin To: Christophe LEROY Cc: Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr, Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr, agust@denx.de, alexandre.torgue@st.com, alistair@popple.id.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org, carlo@caione.org, davem@davemloft.net, galak@kernel.crashing.org, joabreu@synopsys.com, khilman@baylibre.com, maxime.ripard@bootlin.com, michal.lkml@markovi.net, mpe@ellerman.id.au, mporter@kernel.crashing.org, nicolas.palix@imag.fr, oss@buserror.net, paulus@samba.org, peppe.cavallaro@st.com, tj@kernel.org, vitb@kernel.crashing.org, wens@csie.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, cocci@systeme.lip6.fr, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] powerpc: rename setbits32/clrbits32 to setbits32_be/clrbits32_be Message-ID: <20180910185039.GB7819@Red> References: <1536349307-20714-1-git-send-email-clabbe@baylibre.com> <1536349307-20714-2-git-send-email-clabbe@baylibre.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 07:16:56AM +0200, Christophe LEROY wrote: > > > Le 07/09/2018 à 21:41, Corentin Labbe a écrit : > > Since setbits32/clrbits32 work on be32, it's better to remove ambiguity on > > the used data type. > > Wouldn't it be better to call them setbits_be32() / clrbits_be32() to > have something looking similar to in_be32() / ou_be32() ? > I agree, I will update the patch. Thanks