Re: [PATCH v5 1/7] bits: split the definition of the asm and non-asm GENMASK()

Vincent Mailhol
2025-03-13T06:06:41Z

On 13/03/2025 at 13:16, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 02:10:28AM +0900, Vincent Mailhol wrote:
>> On 06/03/2025 at 23:34, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 08:29:52PM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay
>>> wrote:
>>
>> (...)
>>
>>> it seems we now have 1 inconsistency that we comment why
>>> GENMASK_U128() is not available in asm, but we don't comment why
>>> GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK() is not available there. Maybe move this comment on
>>> top of GENMASK_INPUT_CHECK().
>>
>> I will restore the comment in v6 and put it next to the asm definition,
>> c.f. my reply to Andy.
>>
>>> Anyway,
>>>
>>>     Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>>
>> Is this only valid for the first patch or for the full series? If this
>> is for the full series, would you mind replying to the cover letter with
>> your review tag?
>
> only for this patch. I'm the author of some of the patches and also add
> my s-o-b in others. I'm not sure what b4 is going to do with those - it
> would be weird if it added a r-b on my own patch.

Because I added some modification since, I think it wouldn't be so
problematic. But it also makes sense to just add your review on the new
patches. So let do as you suggested.

> Now I added r-b in some and comments in another.

Thanks! I applied the tags locally and answered your comment.

Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol