Hi Andy, Yury,
On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:43:04 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 05:06:12AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 09:07:20AM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > + DECLARE_BITMAP(ts_mask_avail, 64);
> > > + DECLARE_BITMAP(ts_mask, 64);
> > > + DECLARE_BITMAP(map, 64);
>
>
> > > + bitmap_from_u64(ts_mask_avail, ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail);
> > > + bitmap_from_u64(map, slot_map);
>
> > We've got a BITMAP_FROM_U64() for this:
> >
> > DECLARE_BITMAP(ts_mask_avail, 64) = {
> > BITMAP_FROM_U64(ts_info->rx_ts_mask_avail) };
> > DECLARE_BITMAP(map, 64) = { BITMAP_FROM_U64(slot_map) };
>
> This looks ugly. Can we rather provide a macro that does this under the hood?
>
> Roughly:
>
> #define DEFINE_BITMAP_64(name, src) \
> DECLARE_BITMAP(name, 64) = { BITMAP_FROM_U64(src) }
>
Well, the construction I used:
DECLARE_BITMAP(foo, 64);
...
bitmap_from_u64(foo, init_value);
...
can be found in several places in the kernel.
Having the DEFINE_BITMAP_64() macro can be a way to remove this
construction but I am not sure that this should be done in this
series.
IMHO, a specific series introducing the macro and updating pieces of
code in the kernel everywhere it is needed to replace this construction
would make much more sense.
Best regards,
Hervé
