Re: [PATCH 1/4] bitops: Introduce assign_bit()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:30:50AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
> index a83c822c35c2..097af36887c0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
> @@ -226,6 +226,30 @@ static inline unsigned long __ffs64(u64 word)
>  	return __ffs((unsigned long)word);
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * assign_bit - Assign value to a bit in memory
> + * @value: the value to assign
> + * @nr: the bit to set
> + * @addr: the address to start counting from
> + */
> +static __always_inline void assign_bit(bool value, long nr,
> +				       volatile unsigned long *addr)
> +{
> +	if (value)
> +		set_bit(nr, addr);
> +	else
> +		clear_bit(nr, addr);
> +}
> +
> +static __always_inline void __assign_bit(bool value, long nr,
> +					 volatile unsigned long *addr)
> +{
> +	if (value)
> +		__set_bit(nr, addr);
> +	else
> +		__clear_bit(nr, addr);
> +}
> +

I dislike the argument order, in C you naturally write: dst = src. So I
would have expected:

	assign_bit(nr, addr, val);

but we have quite a few of these backwards functions in the kernel (like
most of the atomic_t family) and I didn't check to see if the existing
bitops are part of that 'tradition'.