On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:36 PM Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> 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? -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
