On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 06:01:10PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:36 PM Catalin Marinas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 05:34:10PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > Some in-kernel headers use _BITUL() instead of BIT(). > > > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h > > > arch/s390/include/asm/*.h > > > > > > I think the reason is because BIT() is currently not available > > > in assembly. It hard-codes 1UL, which is not available in assembly. > > [...] > > > Masahiro Yamada (2): > > > linux/bits.h: make BIT(), GENMASK(), and friends available in assembly > > > arm64: replace _BITUL() with BIT() > > > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 82 ++++++++++++++++----------------- > > > include/linux/bits.h | 17 ++++--- > > > > I'm not sure it's worth the hassle. It's nice to have the same BIT macro > > but a quick grep shows arc, arm64, s390 and x86 using _BITUL. Maybe a > > tree-wide clean-up would be more appropriate. > > > I am happy to clean-up the others > in the next development cycle > once 1/2 lands in the mainline. > > > Since there is no subsystem that > takes care of include/linux/bits.h, > I just asked Will to pick up both. > I planed per-arch patch submission > to reduce the possibility of merge conflict. > > > If you guys are not willing to pick up them, > is it better to send treewide conversion to Andrew?
I'm happy either way, so I've acked both of the patches. Will
