[PATCH v6 0/7] bits: Fixed-type GENMASK_U*() and BIT_U*()

[Vincent Mailhol]

On 08/03/2025 at 02:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 12:48:36PM -0500, Yury Norov wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 07:43:57PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 12:18:02PM -0500, Yury Norov wrote:
>>>> No rush, please allow your reviewers a week or two before submitting
>>>> a new iteration unless you want to disregard the previous version for
>>>> some reason, of course. This will not get into the upcoming merge
>>>> window, anyways.

Ack. I was not expecting this to go into the next merge windows either.

Most of the feedback was not on the actual code but just on the naming,
the code comments or the patch descriptions. I normally wait longer on
the first version of a series but I tend to do kick re-spin when
addressing the nitpicks.

But message taken! I will wait a couple of weeks before the next iteration.

>>>> So, what should I do? Go through the v5 and all discussions in there,
>>>> or just jump on this?

The code is the same between v5 and v6.

There is this message from David in which he suggested to make some
changes to the uapi __GENMASK() and __GENMASK_ULL() and to which I
commented that I was not confident doing such changes:

  https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250306192331.2701a029@pumpkin/t/#u

Aside from the above, you wouldn't miss much by directly jumping on this v6.

>>> There is also question to you. Are we going to leave with U128 variants or is
>>> it subject to remove? If the latter, can you issue a formal patch?
>>
>> I asked Anshuman about it as he's the only person interested in it. Will wait
>> for a _usual_ few weeks for reply before making any conclusions. If you know
>> anyone relevant in ARM or everywhere else, feel free to loop them.
> 
> I see, yep, we still have time for that, let's wait a bit.

Ack. Andy, I already addressed your last comments in my local tree. I
will now wait for others' feedback.


Yours sincerely,
Vincent Mailhol