On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 05:54:26PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 04:40:39PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> > > Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:21:30 +0300 > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 04:49:07PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote: > > >> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> > > >> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 15:37:28 +0300 > > >> > > >>> It may be new callers for the same macro, share it. > > >>> > > >>> Note, it's unknown why it's represented in the current form instead of > > >>> simple multiplication and commit 1ff511e35ed8 ("tracing/kprobes: Add > > >>> bitfield type") doesn't explain that neither. Let leave it as is and > > >>> we may improve it in the future. > > >> > > >> Maybe symmetrical change in tools/ like I did[0] an aeon ago? > > > > > > Hmm... Why can't you simply upstream your version? It seems better than > > > mine. > > > > It was a part of the Netlink bigint API which is a bit on hold for now > > (I needed this macro available treewide). > > But I can send it as standalone if you're fine with that. > > I'm fine. Yury?
Do we have opencoded BYTES_TO_BITS() somewhere else? If so, it should be fixed in the same series. Regarding implementation, the current: #define BYTES_TO_BITS(nb) ((BITS_PER_LONG * (nb)) / sizeof(long)) looks weird. Maybe there are some special considerations in a tracing subsystem to make it like this, but as per Masami's email - there's not. For a general purpose I'd suggest a simpler: #define BYTES_TO_BITS(nb) ((nb) * BITS_PER_BYTE) Thanks, Yury