From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF3CC43334 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 23:46:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231510AbiGMXqh (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2022 19:46:37 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:55526 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229598AbiGMXqg (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jul 2022 19:46:36 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102b.google.com (mail-pj1-x102b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD6D6419BF for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 16:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102b.google.com with SMTP id q5-20020a17090a304500b001efcc885cc4so607195pjl.4 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 16:46:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=goY5s09yDjamY/zMU5kBbCD+EHX29aLygMcuT7F3v0c=; b=C2qLSZl8ptTZ42zHdHCxk2BOy9WdHv80VIgEhOva6Wl6xohe3GYNyjEp0ABlzOqOPb 2n0TI1esjW0E/mjTX1bXdvHPK1FMPyToxYwblhrJ4UG87MUSH/MgQhx9RDfZmor1WRlK BpvLYoj44+0u53zAeccpa4OYasWpehzTRdFJyaxomBJ9QNUkVnQURO1WCkB8QIoLkpAo 7g6oQNxWhEQ45rQonxsKPOBZQh5SAJEToJfTMaOF0HJwowUMPzb6lYWDr+gqF5sNzhYJ wh0ccoZEn2uKAcF+nfwbs1Orl2chaMZEAMJJHEgxR8hxc4Rc5lo8fPxCuRcd023ervJv 7TDQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=goY5s09yDjamY/zMU5kBbCD+EHX29aLygMcuT7F3v0c=; b=AQmoge6z0A3zeYf5PrK7sdv8eivxTjz/6A26ibxtYAJd7QljZH69A8GNrzBp1Xjbeh t9WvOcSXk2erFjv77igJc1ByRK6ZzjABZvaw/avqZEjJpNNUddVcZNfsUrztRTkQ6qzR YBf5D9VtpUoqw/9bWI2B4FLPgfLDSYNZgqjXFiIxL5rbNeDKFh+v5BeAYnnpLR97Qo+n o4qUNcAACpi3LMD7lM5A1E0EEZXbuoVMB7R3Xxzwpd83+7N4dHjJ/lh2NTL5yFDPCyWR ACLXmn0zaQf173lV/hjNZyaUggD8m1nCxxEt9kVtVQKcWluImM6lAyqUnKda6Wxhe0xe q67g== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9wqgL5aCDsOd0k8toAgMhSPjyYdEiE7uYGw3JG18vJfgxs8ql7 yE77uLyDkbA45jFvl4Hv8CA5YA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1s+e0Sys0LuGyWP0xkZpSFlrftoz+VqgKP2/XtxSADN2j6AUd5sbSqWzTIneLlO/yMEXjYSJg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c992:b0:16b:d8b9:1c5f with SMTP id g18-20020a170902c99200b0016bd8b91c5fmr5364819plc.93.1657755995336; Wed, 13 Jul 2022 16:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([198.8.77.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y9-20020aa79ae9000000b0052ab8525893sm106545pfp.142.2022.07.13.16.46.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Jul 2022 16:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 17:46:33 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/63] Improve static type checking for request flags Content-Language: en-US To: Bart Van Assche Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig References: <20220629233145.2779494-1-bvanassche@acm.org> From: Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 7/13/22 3:48 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 6/29/22 16:30, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> A source of confusion in the block layer is that can be nontrivial to determine >> which type of flags a u32 function argument accepts. This patch series clears >> up that confusion for request flags by introducing a new __bitwise type, namely >> blk_opf_t. Additionally, the type 'int' is change into 'enum req_op' where used >> to hold a request operation. >> >> Analysis of the sparse warnings introduced by this conversion resulted in one >> bug fix ("blktrace: Trace remap operations correctly"). >> >> Although the number of patches in this series is significant, the risk of this >> patch series is low since most patches involve changing one integer type (int >> or u32) into another integer type of the same size (enum req_op or blk_opf_t). >> >> Please consider this patch series for kernel v5.20. > > (replying to my own email) > > Hi Jens, > > I think that everyone who is interested in reviewing this patch series > has had sufficient time to review the patches in this patch series. Do > you prefer to queue this patch series for kernel v5.20 or kernel > v5.21? I've been pondering the same. I'm fine with going for 5.20 as this will be a pain to maintain, but the first patch doesn't even apply to my for-5.20/block branch... -- Jens Axboe