Hi Will,
2018-03-01 16:16 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com>: > 2018-02-27 0:04 GMT+09:00 Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>: >> Hi everyone, >> >> This is version two of the RFC I previously posted here: >> >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg634719.html >> >> Changes since v1 include: >> >> * Fixed __clear_bit_unlock to work on archs with lock-based atomics >> * Moved lock ops into bitops/lock.h >> * Fixed build breakage on lesser-spotted architectures >> >> Trying to fix the circular #includes introduced by pulling atomic.h >> into btops/lock.h has been driving me insane. I've ended up moving some >> basic BIT definitions into bits.h, but this might all be better in >> const.h which is being proposed by Masahiro. Feedback is especially >> welcome on this part. > > > Info for reviewers: > > You can see my patches at the following: > > 1/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235457/ > 2/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235461/ > 3/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235463/ > 4/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235469/ > 5/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235471/ > > > 5/5 has conflict with Will's 2/12. > > Fortunately, it is at the tail of the series. > It is easy to pick/drop/change > when we decide how to organize it. No comments so far about this part. I think your approach is better since putting BIT* macros into a single header is more consistent. So, I will ask Andrew to drop mine. However, I think <linux/bits.h> will make more sense than <asm-generic/bits.h> These macros are really arch-agnostic. So, we would not expect to have <asm/bits.h> that could fall back to <asm-generic/bits.h>, right? -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
