On 04.04.2024 17:45, Oleksii wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 15:22 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.04.2024 12:19, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/include/xen/bitops.h
>>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/bitops.h
>>> @@ -65,10 +65,164 @@ static inline int generic_flsl(unsigned long
>>> x)
>>> * scope
>>> */
>>>
>>> +#define BITOP_BITS_PER_WORD 32
>>> +/* typedef uint32_t bitop_uint_t; */
>>> +#define bitop_uint_t uint32_t
>>
>> So no arch overrides permitted anymore at all?
> Not really, I agree that it is ugly, but I expected that arch will use
> undef to override.
Which would be fine in principle, just that Misra wants us to avoid #undef-s
(iirc).
>>> /*
>>> * Find First Set bit. Bits are labelled from 1.
>>> */
>>
>> This context suggests there's a dependency on an uncommitted patch.
>> Nothing
>> above says so. I guess you have a remark in the cover letter, yet imo
>> that's
>> only partly helpful.
> Is it really a hard dependency?
> The current patch series really depends on ffs{l}() and that was
> mentioned in the cover letter ( I'll reword the cover letter to explain
> why exactly this dependency is needed ), but this patch isn't really
> depends on Andrew's patch series, where ffs{l}() are introduced.
If anyone acked this patch, and if it otherwise looked independent, it would
be a candidate for committing. Just that it won't apply for a non-obvious
reason.
Jan
