On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 03:20:22PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote: > On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:01:38 +0200 > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
... > Agree, the bitmap_onto() code is simpler to understand than its help. > > I introduced bitmap_off() to be the "reverse" bitmap_onto() operations > and I preferred to avoid duplicating function that do the same things. > > On my side, I initially didn't use the bitmap_*() functions and did the the > bits manipulation by hand. > During the review, it was suggested to use the bitmap_*() family and I > followed > this suggestion. I also would go this way, the problems I see with the current implementation are: - being related to NUMA (and as Rasmus once pointed out better to be there); - unclear naming, esp. proposed bitmap_off(); - the quite hard to understand help text - atomicity when it's not needed (AFAICT). > I did tests to be sure that bitmap_onto() and bitmap_off() did > exactly the same things as my previous code did. Yuri, what do you think about all this? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
