From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B8863B189; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707748608; cv=none; b=l/FVk7tddrudmqnTpLxM7wjl1fr85rfZA2tu4ttrlsTSDBI6CXMz4D8hBuD2mfJkuP8baY/RGM+K1PMGufnt9UzSeIAtxkOMnuKEmWtaoFcJRyS35aHdmzyzEPeJp8q8NpU23FftFtqVPnDazO5MxMhx03MNWoZzJwg1sGNbLSM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707748608; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NgxONl1Mo80zC/wVZflOnNJ1Dx1W2G8WQMUGFtld7AY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=pz8yI/uUBSp8cgj40CIJgTMpUD1oD5KdvHG0rANKjRaGkwnXo2CH1TmgfPzU3SR5TfWB/Qf7QYyQxk9YfEjweggC/tO9UzIgxcAVL8qQMjlK81E/NyhJMLJXHqPfO1TR2ylmd2S3H4Kc5dD+LDAxk69Y8qWTFjhHIuCGpTdoYxQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=KZ5gJbiN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="KZ5gJbiN" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1707748608; x=1739284608; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=NgxONl1Mo80zC/wVZflOnNJ1Dx1W2G8WQMUGFtld7AY=; b=KZ5gJbiNIJw9MVZtjRiPdhkCUMZuPef31cWMTVwfE7qEKaJZ6giNBIxi NyfEkyHuzp2wg9JEiF2lUWYvbsw6148Ttfj5JsXdSyaL5yXc+HhpVXk6y iOcvOAsAD17IG+dINIxwxC1wWB3pqgO2InxS1NoHqrap66Wi8DnVAw4RG KvlltSbK3GcnElf/pQ9FWYhO3560iHFru3DkZFxp/TuLq5GMDx477TMcW IUIaxr2RED+ROfirWOrVHwHJrCqBkuJ6USQvH02BvTOtvbe6CQo0fm9Y7 YdxSrs5BmxnqwKO+hpJzDPGZN5CzVc7KIJGJXueHZscUAnPuUKb70fwCX Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10982"; a="12815641" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,264,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="12815641" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orvoesa105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Feb 2024 06:36:47 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,10982"; a="911498069" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.06,264,1705392000"; d="scan'208";a="911498069" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Feb 2024 06:36:40 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rZXQD-00000003vJa-11bE; Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:36:37 +0200 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:36:36 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Herve Codina Cc: Vadim Fedorenko , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Yury Norov , Rasmus Villemoes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Andrew Lunn , Mark Brown , Christophe Leroy , Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 RESEND 3/6] bitmap: Make bitmap_onto() available to users Message-ID: References: <20240212075646.19114-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com> <20240212075646.19114-4-herve.codina@bootlin.com> <20240212143753.620ddd6e@bootlin.com> <20240212152022.75b10268@bootlin.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240212152022.75b10268@bootlin.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 03:20:22PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote: > On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:01:38 +0200 > Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > Agree, the bitmap_onto() code is simpler to understand than its help. > > I introduced bitmap_off() to be the "reverse" bitmap_onto() operations > and I preferred to avoid duplicating function that do the same things. > > On my side, I initially didn't use the bitmap_*() functions and did the the > bits manipulation by hand. > During the review, it was suggested to use the bitmap_*() family and I followed > this suggestion. I also would go this way, the problems I see with the current implementation are: - being related to NUMA (and as Rasmus once pointed out better to be there); - unclear naming, esp. proposed bitmap_off(); - the quite hard to understand help text - atomicity when it's not needed (AFAICT). > I did tests to be sure that bitmap_onto() and bitmap_off() did > exactly the same things as my previous code did. Yuri, what do you think about all this? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko