From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74E8CC48297 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 18:38:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=BAFMoZ1L; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TYY9l0pHlz3dC0 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 05:38:03 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20230601 header.b=BAFMoZ1L; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::112e; helo=mail-yw1-x112e.google.com; envelope-from=yury.norov@gmail.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mail-yw1-x112e.google.com (mail-yw1-x112e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TYY8x2RGMz3cCb for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 05:37:21 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-yw1-x112e.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-603fd31f5c2so37882427b3.0 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:37:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1707763038; x=1708367838; darn=lists.ozlabs.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Urk/xvX+UKbKGSqpVvdQe9PJXR++Pgpk6nNhD2JHitg=; b=BAFMoZ1LdOljZLMXM5rcHLVurThW454OxEeopsL1xFaaAl55dpO2rvJWMxtnSSa6Yd kGj5JhRvoEUULQNWQMS5bnmpQ34tNoHy+eS91BUIMeG8W1bty2vNMk+PLsIEEwubp9IY lts73mcdHL3k8PaeNcPKFpktC9v4b7jzBgON3/xjYA0i3HMRz+iUUFD0tbIhgXjUKdP1 SfoHhQ/q7Dsk9cLVWSiyIEZAYiq33AgfRhG27t2tCxm4t97UxPHwYE5gpzBu2Mrtu1Q1 /9eKFbIIJu4HjfB8s+MXICg+jn/FldBHMbUVWSk0XlT1AtfDMTezZqbBiq7DF4VP6hJh qPEw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707763038; x=1708367838; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Urk/xvX+UKbKGSqpVvdQe9PJXR++Pgpk6nNhD2JHitg=; b=TslqkGckNbGsRipodZIauG5zmXxOjA1QK8PqhmZznKHPY2eDlpQRYfdf9WZCDH4X/B JFYPnCy8aF+FEmOMNvtlCn32l9CQyljqE0bXxTWnkSY/Cv7JInRkOY0JwwjgV6Hk+qdm ftXYwisUtYq9KlbruqLbVaNVtxSKOGYY67LT6h86gcNW5LV9YA0t62wo6Yh245RaTc0+ Z080mcC0zWQwN4yzPS6eqFZj16Ip15YnVJeaj3ew5K9C4Ot2Im4ChqK8U5/qtpcBB83Z CiVREk11/9FtB7X/BrFlLfmdGrBOVaJUMt5Sr+c7lwYbbjU3foANyH5Utma9wpIW00ZN Vxpg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzktYr4Jho0Uqn3aU5atTqWbHNlAPlkNRmqH9qIUvNtmbFZmPan bzZMpXJjpKL0nhVhmK4YQqeUI6oYm7xWjKAVGwwjIqbh5g1gPM1e X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEpd+QbpXDB2ycV1t5rD40xn6kwWMLP7zDSBdWBR9zSWASGH0Ugsa2ib4yux5Jw29DdKmxVfQ== X-Received: by 2002:a0d:e845:0:b0:604:7bab:dac1 with SMTP id r66-20020a0de845000000b006047babdac1mr280436ywe.15.1707763037858; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:37:17 -0800 (PST) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX3NpMjINqr6ODt3JXMsBQ2F7ZuSuRpJICxX/qJB2m9t0QalgdEtK0ncdpG0yVeSPZ/yP3zUrMapSAKaZj9rpBe2GZNRkETsKAD5rS+mENVDa89pdt9a4n7q5aiKdA8qolC3e31vAcyVX+cuf8qFx4B15M9rwRVbFa5hxEXSqiCUoIrFiCHBnlTsobXFzfu5JZqOvpN8C/IOL4rfQQvyXw2sC9ehwfFsMfM16UF7E4q50Le0Cff2D1q0R9DCqAt5O9uG1NvIaijR34dj+/roSDDzr3rRkVM6ODiyZ4WRI2+VHGFBJ5y/6mQUfeO2lvlCZ3yAWWjPGXPFXngsUduXc6DFtsriqURsX64W2MlhIGwJuy1fN8J45LYDAOj+QWczUN4sskDZF6ZglcGuUXogIWlE8WHANXvkL2c3kfA9+do50Z2EksJwGCMvEy3Q1EsivNvnIIVTjLsHGND3764tAOf/861BfL4wn/iJrO6QQ== Received: from localhost ([2601:344:8301:57f0:85b5:dd54:cd99:b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n133-20020a81728b000000b006041221d0ccsm1275634ywc.68.2024.02.12.10.37.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:37:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:37:15 -0800 From: Yury Norov To: Herve Codina Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 RESEND 4/6] bitmap: Introduce bitmap_off() Message-ID: References: <20240212075646.19114-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com> <20240212075646.19114-5-herve.codina@bootlin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240212075646.19114-5-herve.codina@bootlin.com> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Andrew Lunn , Andy Shevchenko , Vadim Fedorenko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Rasmus Villemoes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet , Mark Brown , Thomas Petazzoni , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:56:32AM +0100, Herve Codina wrote: > The bitmap_onto() function translates one bitmap relative to another but > no function are present to perform the reverse translation. > > Introduce bitmap_off() to fill this hole. > > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina > --- > include/linux/bitmap.h | 3 +++ > lib/bitmap.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/linux/bitmap.h b/include/linux/bitmap.h > index 99451431e4d6..5ecfcbbc91f4 100644 > --- a/include/linux/bitmap.h > +++ b/include/linux/bitmap.h > @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ struct device; > * bitmap_remap(dst, src, old, new, nbits) *dst = map(old, new)(src) > * bitmap_bitremap(oldbit, old, new, nbits) newbit = map(old, new)(oldbit) > * bitmap_onto(dst, orig, relmap, nbits) *dst = orig relative to relmap > + * bitmap_off(dst, orig, relmap, nbits) *dst = bitmap_onto() reverse operation > * bitmap_fold(dst, orig, sz, nbits) dst bits = orig bits mod sz > * bitmap_parse(buf, buflen, dst, nbits) Parse bitmap dst from kernel buf > * bitmap_parse_user(ubuf, ulen, dst, nbits) Parse bitmap dst from user buf > @@ -208,6 +209,8 @@ int bitmap_bitremap(int oldbit, > const unsigned long *old, const unsigned long *new, int bits); > void bitmap_onto(unsigned long *dst, const unsigned long *orig, > const unsigned long *relmap, unsigned int bits); > +void bitmap_off(unsigned long *dst, const unsigned long *orig, > + const unsigned long *relmap, unsigned int bits); > void bitmap_fold(unsigned long *dst, const unsigned long *orig, > unsigned int sz, unsigned int nbits); > > diff --git a/lib/bitmap.c b/lib/bitmap.c > index 2feccb5047dc..71343967335e 100644 > --- a/lib/bitmap.c > +++ b/lib/bitmap.c > @@ -682,6 +682,48 @@ void bitmap_onto(unsigned long *dst, const unsigned long *orig, > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_onto); > > +/** > + * bitmap_off - revert operation done by bitmap_onto() This is definitely a bad name. I've no a better idea, but even bitmap_onto_revert() would be better. > + * @dst: resulting translated bitmap > + * @orig: original untranslated bitmap > + * @relmap: bitmap relative to which translated > + * @bits: number of bits in each of these bitmaps > + * > + * Suppose onto computed using bitmap_onto(onto, src, relmap, n) > + * The operation bitmap_off(result, onto, relmap, n) leads to a > + * result equal or equivalent to src. Agree with Rasmus. This should be well tested. > + * The result can be 'equivalent' because bitmap_onto() and > + * bitmap_off() are not bijective. > + * The result and src values are equivalent in that sense that a > + * call to bitmap_onto(onto, src, relmap, n) and a call to > + * bitmap_onto(onto, result, relmap, n) will lead to the same onto > + * value. Did you mean "a call to bitmap_onto(onto, src, relmap, n) and a call to bitmap_off(onto, result, relmap, n)"? I think the whole paragraph adds more confusion than explanations. If a new function is supposed to revert the result of some other function, I'd better focus on testing that it actually reverts as advertised, and keep description as brief as possible. > + * If either of @orig or @relmap is empty (no set bits), then @dst > + * will be returned empty. Is this an exception from the 'revert' policy? Doesn't look like that. So, what for mentioning this specific case? > + * All bits in @dst not set by the above rule are cleared. The above rule is about empty @orig and @relmap, not about setting bits. What did you mean here? > + */ > +void bitmap_off(unsigned long *dst, const unsigned long *orig, > + const unsigned long *relmap, unsigned int bits) > +{ > + unsigned int n, m; /* same meaning as in above comment */ In the above comment, n means the size of bitmaps, and m is not mentioned at all. > + if (dst == orig) /* following doesn't handle inplace mappings */ > + return; > + bitmap_zero(dst, bits); Can you add an empty line after 'return'. > + m = 0; > + for_each_set_bit(n, relmap, bits) { > + /* m == bitmap_pos_to_ord(relmap, n, bits) */ Don't think we need this comment here. If you want to underline that m tracks bit order, can you just give it a more explanatory name. For example, 'bit_order'. > + if (test_bit(n, orig)) > + set_bit(m, dst); > + m++; > + } > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(bitmap_off); > + > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA > /** > * bitmap_fold - fold larger bitmap into smaller, modulo specified size > -- > 2.43.0