| Message ID | 20190527083412.26651-1-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Allow assembly code to use BIT(), GENMASK(), etc. and clean-up arm64 header | expand |
Hi Will, Is this series applicable to arm64 tree? Thanks. On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 5:37 PM Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote: > > > Some in-kernel headers use _BITUL() instead of BIT(). > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h > arch/s390/include/asm/*.h > > I think the reason is because BIT() is currently not available > in assembly. It hard-codes 1UL, which is not available in assembly. > > 1/2 replaced > 1UL -> UL(1) > 0UL -> UL(0) > 1ULL -> ULL(1) > 0ULL -> ULL(0) > > With this, there is no more restriction that prevents assembly > code from using them. > > 2/2 is a clean-up as as example. > > I can contribute to cleanups of arch/s390/, etc. > once this series lands in upstream. > > I hope both patches can go in the arm64 tree. > > > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > linux/bits.h: make BIT(), GENMASK(), and friends available in assembly > arm64: replace _BITUL() with BIT() > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 82 ++++++++++++++++----------------- > include/linux/bits.h | 17 ++++--- > 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.17.1 > -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 05:34:10PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Some in-kernel headers use _BITUL() instead of BIT(). > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h > arch/s390/include/asm/*.h > > I think the reason is because BIT() is currently not available > in assembly. It hard-codes 1UL, which is not available in assembly. [...] > Masahiro Yamada (2): > linux/bits.h: make BIT(), GENMASK(), and friends available in assembly > arm64: replace _BITUL() with BIT() > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 82 ++++++++++++++++----------------- > include/linux/bits.h | 17 ++++--- I'm not sure it's worth the hassle. It's nice to have the same BIT macro but a quick grep shows arc, arm64, s390 and x86 using _BITUL. Maybe a tree-wide clean-up would be more appropriate. -- Catalin
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:36 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 05:34:10PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Some in-kernel headers use _BITUL() instead of BIT(). > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h > > arch/s390/include/asm/*.h > > > > I think the reason is because BIT() is currently not available > > in assembly. It hard-codes 1UL, which is not available in assembly. > [...] > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > > linux/bits.h: make BIT(), GENMASK(), and friends available in assembly > > arm64: replace _BITUL() with BIT() > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 82 ++++++++++++++++----------------- > > include/linux/bits.h | 17 ++++--- > > I'm not sure it's worth the hassle. It's nice to have the same BIT macro > but a quick grep shows arc, arm64, s390 and x86 using _BITUL. Maybe a > tree-wide clean-up would be more appropriate. I am happy to clean-up the others in the next development cycle once 1/2 lands in the mainline. Since there is no subsystem that takes care of include/linux/bits.h, I just asked Will to pick up both. I planed per-arch patch submission to reduce the possibility of merge conflict. If you guys are not willing to pick up them, is it better to send treewide conversion to Andrew? -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 06:01:10PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:36 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 05:34:10PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > Some in-kernel headers use _BITUL() instead of BIT(). > > > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h > > > arch/s390/include/asm/*.h > > > > > > I think the reason is because BIT() is currently not available > > > in assembly. It hard-codes 1UL, which is not available in assembly. > > [...] > > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > > > linux/bits.h: make BIT(), GENMASK(), and friends available in assembly > > > arm64: replace _BITUL() with BIT() > > > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 82 ++++++++++++++++----------------- > > > include/linux/bits.h | 17 ++++--- > > > > I'm not sure it's worth the hassle. It's nice to have the same BIT macro > > but a quick grep shows arc, arm64, s390 and x86 using _BITUL. Maybe a > > tree-wide clean-up would be more appropriate. > > > I am happy to clean-up the others > in the next development cycle > once 1/2 lands in the mainline. > > > Since there is no subsystem that > takes care of include/linux/bits.h, > I just asked Will to pick up both. > I planed per-arch patch submission > to reduce the possibility of merge conflict. > > > If you guys are not willing to pick up them, > is it better to send treewide conversion to Andrew? I'm happy either way, so I've acked both of the patches. Will