On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:01:38 +0200 Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 14:27:16 +0200 > > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 08:56:31AM +0100, Herve Codina wrote: > > > > Currently the bitmap_onto() is available only for CONFIG_NUMA=y case, > > > > while some users may benefit out of it and being independent to NUMA > > > > code. > > > > > > > > Make it available to users by moving out of ifdeffery and exporting for > > > > modules. > > > > > > Wondering if you are trying to have something like > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230926052007.3917389-1-andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com/ > > > > > > > Yes, it looks like. > > Can you confirm that your bitmap_scatter() do the same operations as the > > existing bitmap_onto() ? > > I have test cases to be 100% sure, but on the first glance, yes it does with > the adjustment to the atomicity of the operations (which I do not understand > why be atomic in the original bitmap_onto() implementation). > > This actually gives a question if we should use your approach or mine. > At least the help of bitmap_onto() is kinda hard to understand. Agree, the bitmap_onto() code is simpler to understand than its help. I introduced bitmap_off() to be the "reverse" bitmap_onto() operations and I preferred to avoid duplicating function that do the same things. On my side, I initially didn't use the bitmap_*() functions and did the the bits manipulation by hand. During the review, it was suggested to use the bitmap_*() family and I followed this suggestion. I did tests to be sure that bitmap_onto() and bitmap_off() did exactly the same things as my previous code did. > > > If so, your bitmap_gather() will match my bitmap_off() (patch 4 in this > > series). > > Yes. > Regards, Hervé