Re: [PATCH 0/2] Allow assembly code to use BIT(), GENMASK(), etc. and clean-up arm64 header

[Masahiro Yamada]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:36 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> 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