Hi Will,

2018-03-01 16:16 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com>:
> 2018-02-27 0:04 GMT+09:00 Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>:
>> Hi everyone,
>> This is version two of the RFC I previously posted here:
>>   https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg634719.html
>> Changes since v1 include:
>>   * Fixed __clear_bit_unlock to work on archs with lock-based atomics
>>   * Moved lock ops into bitops/lock.h
>>   * Fixed build breakage on lesser-spotted architectures
>> Trying to fix the circular #includes introduced by pulling atomic.h
>> into btops/lock.h has been driving me insane. I've ended up moving some
>> basic BIT definitions into bits.h, but this might all be better in
>> const.h which is being proposed by Masahiro. Feedback is especially
>> welcome on this part.
> Info for reviewers:
> You can see my patches at the following:
> 1/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235457/
> 2/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235461/
> 3/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235463/
> 4/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235469/
> 5/5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10235471/
> 5/5 has conflict with Will's 2/12.
> Fortunately, it is at the tail of the series.
> It is easy to pick/drop/change
> when we decide how to organize it.

No comments so far about this part.

I think your approach is better
since putting BIT* macros into a single header
is more consistent.

So, I will ask Andrew to drop mine.

However, I think <linux/bits.h> will make more sense
than <asm-generic/bits.h>

These macros are really arch-agnostic.
So, we would not expect to have <asm/bits.h>
that could fall back to <asm-generic/bits.h>, right?

Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

Reply via email to