Hi Nick, On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 08:35:19PM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 7:04 AM, Minchan Kim <minc...@kernel.org> wrote: > > Sorry for the delay. I have missed this until now. ;-( > > No worries, figured patches would need a post holiday bump for review. > > > > > On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Nick Desaulniers > > <nick.desaulni...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> - link->next = -1 << OBJ_TAG_BITS; > >> + link->next = -1U << OBJ_TAG_BITS; > > > > -1UL? > > Oops, good catch. > > > Please, resend it with including Andrew Morton > > <a...@linux-foundation.org> who merges zsmalloc patch into his tree. > > Will do. > > On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Oh, boy, shouldn't be rather GENMASK() / GENMASK_ULL() in a way how > > Thanks for the suggestion. `GENMASK(BITS_PER_LONG - 1, OBJ_TAG_BITS);` > is equivalent. Whether that is more readable, I'll wait for Minchan > to decide. If that's preferred, I'll make sure to credit you with the > Suggested-By tag in the commit message.
I don't see any benefit with GENMASK in our usecase. If it's not a good justfication, I'd like to use just -1UL which would be more readable without effort to understand new API. Thanks.
