[PATCH v3 RESEND 3/6] bitmap: Make bitmap_onto() available to users

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 06:46:12PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 11:13:13 -0800
> Yury Norov <yury.norov at gmail.com> wrote:

...

> > That's I agree. Scatter/gather from your last approach sound better.
> > Do you plan to send a v2?

See below.

...

> > I think your scatter/gather is better then this onto/off by naming and
> > implementation. If you'll send a v2, and it would work for Herve, I'd
> > prefer scatter/gather. But we can live with onto/off as well.
> 
> Andy, I tested your bitmap_{scatter,gather}() in my code.
> I simply replaced my bitmap_{onto,off}() calls by calls to your helpers and
> it works perfectly for my use case.
> 
> I didn't use your whole patch
>   "[PATCH v1 2/5] lib/bitmap: Introduce bitmap_scatter() and bitmap_gather() helpers"
> because it didn't apply on a v6.8-rc1 based branch.
> I just manually extracted the needed functions for my tests and I didn't look
> at the lib/test_bitmap.c part.
> 
> Now what's the plan ?
> Andy, do you want to send a v2 of this patch or may I get the patch, modify it
> according to reviews already present in v1 and integrate it in my current
> series ?

I would like to do that, but under pile of different things.
I would try my best but if you have enough time and motivation feel free
to take over, address the comments and integrate in your series.

I dunno what to do with bitmap_onto(), perhaps in a separate patch we can
replace it with bitmap_scatter() (IIUC) with explanation that the former
1) uses atomic ops while being non-atomic as a whole, and b) having quite
hard to get documentation. At least that's how I see it, I mean that I would
like to leave bitmap_onto() alone and address it separately.

> Yury, any preferences ?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko