Re: [PATCH 5.15 1/3] bitops: always define asm-generic non-atomic bitops

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 11:42:55AM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> commit 21bb8af513d35c005c401706030f4eb469538d1d upstream.
> 
> Move generic non-atomic bitops from the asm-generic header which
> gets included only when there are no architecture-specific
> alternatives, to a separate independent file to make them always
> available.
> Almost no actual code changes, only one comment added to
> generic_test_bit() saying that it's an atomic operation itself
> and thus `volatile` must always stay there with no cast-aways.
> 
> Suggested-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> # comment
> Suggested-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com> # reference to kernel-doc
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
> 
> ---
>  include/asm-generic/bitops/generic-non-atomic.h |  130 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/asm-generic/bitops/non-atomic.h         |  110 +-------------------
>  2 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)
> 

{sigh}

Please work with a kernel developer at your company that understands how
to send out patch series properly (correctly threaded and versioned),
and also go and read the DCO for what you need to do when sending on
patches that you want submitted (hint, you have to sign off on it.)

Then get THEM to also sign off on the contribution as well, showing that
they agree this change is needed, and is correct, and THEN resend all of
these, with the proper people copied also, in the correct format.

And properly use a 0/X email that explains why these changes are needed,
and what is involved with them, as I have no context at all (remember,
we deal with hundreds of changes a day.)

As it is, I can not take these patches at all, sorry, nor should you
want me to.

greg k-h