On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 11:27:55AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 16:23:53 +0000 "Lorenzo Stoakes (Oracle)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Maybe 'into an inline constant value' is better?
>
> <bikeshedbikeshed>
>
> How about
>
> : Be explicit about __mk_vma_flags() (which is used by the mk_vma_flags()
> : macro) always being inline, as we rely on the compiler turning all
> : constants into compile-time ones.
>
Well I think that loses the meaning a bit.
Something like:
Be explicit about __mk_vma_flags() (which is used by the mk_vma_flags()
-macro) always being inline, as we rely on the compiler converting this
-function into meaningful.
+macro) always being inline, as we rely on the compiler to evaluate the
+loop in this function and determine that it can replace the code with the
+an equivalent constant value, e.g. that:
+
+__mk_vma_flags(2, (const vma_flag_t []){ VMA_WRITE_BIT, VMA_EXEC_BIT });
+
+Can be replaced with:
+
+(1UL << VMA_WRITE_BIT) | (1UL << VMA_EXEC_BIT)
+
+= (1UL << 1) | (1UL << 2) = 6
+
+Most likely an 'inline' will suffice for this, but be explicit as we can
+be.
Should verbosely cover that off.
Thanks, Lorenzo
