Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/3] bitmap: import bitmap_{set/clear} from Linux 5.5

From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>
Cc: "Stefano Stabellini" <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	"Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>,
	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	"George Dunlap" <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	"Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	"Ian Jackson" <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/3] bitmap: import bitmap_{set/clear} from Linux 5.5
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 13:32:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ea8e70a3-83d2-0491-115c-fbf18bd1d705@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87208524-5c30-48cf-fe7a-e5d77a26414b@xen.org>

On 10.02.2020 13:21, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 10/02/2020 11:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 10.02.2020 12:00, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 10/02/2020 10:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 10.02.2020 10:45, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>> Please suggest a new name for BIT_WORD() and we can repurpose it. So
>>>>> far, I have no idea how to rename it.
>>>>
>>>> _BIT_WORD() if you/we were to accept the name space violation, or
>>>> BITMAP_WORD()?
>>>
>>> BITMAP_WORD() is misleading as bitmap are using unsigned long. So my
>>> preference is _BIT_WORD().
>>>
>>> Another alternative would be ATOMIC_WORD().
>>
>> Except that there are also non-atomic bitmap operations, I don't really
>> care about the name as long as it's not BIT_WORD() (or anything else
>> that's likely to collide with other stuff.
> 
> I am afraid we are disagreing on what is colliding with what here. The 
> naming on Arm has been like that for the past few years. While this may 
> not have been the best choice, this is your suggestion colliding with 
> what is existing.

It is a plain import from Linux which has turned out impossible
because of the change that was done at some point to Arm code
which, I guess, also originally came from Linux. There's no new
naming I've been suggesting here at all.

> I am not entirely fussed about the namespace violation, although I think 
> the name is potentially misleading. Yet, I would be happy to use 
> _BIT_WORD() as this is the best of it so far.
> 
> While this is code falls under Arm maintainership, I am still happy to 
> consider other naming. But at this point, you should be the one suggesting.

BIT_UNIT() or BITOP_UNIT() or BITOP_WORD()?

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel