On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 07:54:27AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 07:45:35AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > bitmap_parselist has been evolved from a pretty simple idea for long and > > now lacks for refactoring. It is not structured, has nested loops and a > > set of opaque-named variables. > > > > Things are more complicated because bitmap_parselist() is a part of user > > interface, and its behavior should not change. > > > > In this patchset > > - bitmap_parselist_user() made a wrapper on bitmap_parselist(); > > - bitmap_parselist() reworked (patch 2); > > - time measurement in test_bitmap_parselist switched to ktime_get > > (patch 3); > > - new tests introduced (patch 4), and > > - bitmap_parselist_user() testing enabled with the same testset as > > bitmap_parselist() (patch 5). > > > > v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/23/50 > > v2: https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg3048976.html > > v3: Implementation of an approach with copying the data to > > kernel space in bitmap_parselist_user() instead of parsing > > user data byte by byte. For me, it looks better than v2.
> I'm sorry for noise. My mail server works unstable, and it would be > better to submit patches 4 and 5 a bit later. They are actually the > same as in v2. May you send then v4 with my (and others if any) comments being addressed? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
