| Message ID | 20190527083412.26651-1-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| 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 >
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.
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?
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