From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-x244.google.com (mail-wm0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::244]) (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 428HHv6H9fzF3B0 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2018 04:53:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wm0-x244.google.com with SMTP id q8-v6so22589380wmq.4 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:53:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:53:25 +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 2/5] include: add setbits32/clrbits32/clrsetbits32/setbits64/clrbits64/clrsetbits64 in linux/setbits.h Message-ID: <20180910185325.GC7819@Red> References: <1536349307-20714-1-git-send-email-clabbe@baylibre.com> <1536349307-20714-3-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 07:22:04AM +0200, Christophe LEROY wrote: > > > Le 07/09/2018 à 21:41, Corentin Labbe a écrit : > > This patch adds setbits32/clrbits32/clrsetbits32 and > > setbits64/clrbits64/clrsetbits64 in linux/setbits.h header. > > So you changed the name of setbits32() ... to setbits32_be() and now you > are adding new functions called setbits32() ... which do something > different ? > > What will happen if any file has been forgotten during the conversion, > or if anybody has outoftree drivers and missed this change ? > They will silently successfully compile without any error or warning, > and the result will be crap buggy. > > And why would it be more legitim to have setbits32() be implicitely LE > instead of implicitely BE ? > > I really think those new functions should be called something like > setbits_le32() ... > I believed that writel/readl was endian agnostic so it explain my mistake. I will use xxxbits_le32 as you requests. Thanks Regards