Hi Masahiro, On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:56:28PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > 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.
Thanks. > 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? That's fair. I'll do a respin using linux/*. Cheers, Will
