On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:31 AM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 3:54 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 7:09 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:28:08AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:27 AM William Breathitt Gray
> > > > <vilhelm.g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This macro iterates for each 8-bit group of bits (clump) with set
> > > > > bits,
> > > > > within a bitmap memory region. For each iteration, "start" is set to
> > > > > the
> > > > > bit offset of the found clump, while the respective clump value is
> > > > > stored to the location pointed by "clump". Additionally, the
> > > > > bitmap_get_value8 and bitmap_set_value8 functions are introduced to
> > > > > respectively get and set an 8-bit value in a bitmap memory region.
> > >
> > > > Why is the return type "unsigned long" where you know
> > > > it return the 8-bit value ?
> > >
> > > Because bitmap API operates on unsigned long type. This is not only
> > > consistency, but for sake of flexibility in case we would like to
> > > introduce
> > > more calls like clump16 or so.
> >
> > TBH, that doesn't convince me: those functions explicitly take/return an
> > 8-bit value, and have "8" in their name. The 8-bit value is never
> > really related to, retrieved from, or stored in a full "unsigned long"
> > element of a bitmap, only to/from/in a part (byte) of it.
> >
> > Following your rationale, all of iowrite{8,16,32,64}*() should take an
> > "unsigned long" value, too.
> >
>
> +1
>
> Using u8/u16/u32/u64 looks more consistent with other bitmap helpers.
>
> void bitmap_from_arr32(unsigned long *bitmap, const u32 *buf, unsigned
> int nbits);
> void bitmap_to_arr32(u32 *buf, const unsigned long *bitmap, unsigned int
> nbits);
> static inline void bitmap_from_u64(unsigned long *dst, u64 mask);
>
>
>
> If you want to see more examples from other parts,
Geert's and yours examples both are not related. They are about
fixed-width properies when we know that is the part of protocol.
Here we have no protocol which stricts us to the mentioned fixed-width types.
So, I can tell an opposite, your arguments didn't convince me.
Imagine the function which does an or / and / xor operation on bitmap.
Now, when I supply unsigned long, I will see
operations on one type in _one_ function independently of the size.
Your proposal will make an unneded churn.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
