On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 04:43:11PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote: > 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. I also think that this can be done later, above is just a pure suggestion how. > 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. Right. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko