Re: [PATCH 0/9] bitfield: add FIELD_GET_SIGNED()

[Yury Norov]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 11:50:10AM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 01:09:27PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 13:36:11 -0400
> > Yury Norov <ynorov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > The bitfields are designed in assumption that fields contain unsigned
> > > integer values, thus extracting the values from the field implies
> > > zero-extending.
> > > 
> > > Some drivers need to sign-extend their fields, and currently do it like:
> > > 
> > > 	dc_re += sign_extend32(FIELD_GET(0xfff000, tmp), 11);
> > > 	dc_im += sign_extend32(FIELD_GET(0xfff, tmp), 11);
> > > 
> > > It's error-prone because it relies on user to provide the correct
> > > index of the most significant bit.
> > > 
> > > This series adds a signed version of FIELD_GET(), which is the more
> > > convenient and compiles (on x86_64) to just a couple instructions:
> > > shl and sar.
> > > 
> > > Patch #1 adds FIELD_GET_SIGNED(), and the rest of the series applies it
> > > tree-wide.
> > > 
> > 
> > Just a quick heads up that I'm beginning to assume that this series
> > will land in some form.  If it does can we do it as an immutable branch
> > as I'm suggesting it gets used in some other patches in that should land
> > in the new cycle.
> 
> I'm going to submit v2 soon, as seemingly the discussion is boiled
> down, and then will likely merge it with my tree. I'll create an
> immutable branch for you before the end of day.

Here it is:

https://github.com/norov/linux/pull/new/fgsv2

It builds well for me, but I'll wait for a while for robots feedback
before making it 'officially' immutable.

Thanks,
Yury