On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 14:38 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > The subject contains a couple typos: it's missing "of" and it's > missing the "n" on "down". Noted > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 12:47:41PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > > The function now is safe to use while expecting a 64bit value. Use it > > where relevant. > > Please include the function names ("roundup_pow_of_two()", > "rounddown_pow_of_two()") in the changelog so it is self-contained and > doesn't depend on the subject. Noted > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne > > With the nits above and below addressed, > > Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas # drivers/pci Thanks! > > --- > > drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 2 +- > > drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_clock.c | 3 ++- > > drivers/of/device.c | 3 ++- > > drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pcie-cadence-ep.c | 3 ++- > > drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pcie-cadence.c | 3 ++- > > drivers/pci/controller/pcie-brcmstb.c | 3 ++- > > drivers/pci/controller/pcie-rockchip-ep.c | 5 +++-- > > kernel/dma/direct.c | 2 +- > > 8 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pcie-cadence-ep.c > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pcie-cadence-ep.c > > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > > > #include "pcie-cadence.h" > > > > @@ -65,7 +66,7 @@ static int cdns_pcie_ep_set_bar(struct pci_epc *epc, u8 > > fn, > > * roundup_pow_of_two() returns an unsigned long, which is not suited > > * for 64bit values. > > */ > > Please remove the comment above since it no longer applies. Noted [...] > > diff --git a/kernel/dma/direct.c b/kernel/dma/direct.c > > index 6af7ae83c4ad..056886c4efec 100644 > > --- a/kernel/dma/direct.c > > +++ b/kernel/dma/direct.c > > @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ u64 dma_direct_get_required_mask(struct device *dev) > > { > > u64 max_dma = phys_to_dma_direct(dev, (max_pfn - 1) << PAGE_SHIFT); > > > > - return (1ULL << (fls64(max_dma) - 1)) * 2 - 1; > > + return rounddown_pow_of_two(max_dma) * 2 - 1; > > Personally I would probably make this one a separate patch since it's > qualitatively different than the others and it would avoid the slight > awkwardness of the non-greppable "roundup/down_pow_of_two()" > construction in the commit subject. > > But it's fine either way. I'll split it into two parts, as RobH made a similar complaint. Regards, Nicolas