Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 08/12] arm/mem_access: Introduce GENMASK_ULL bit operation

[Sergej Proskurin <proskurin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Julien,

On 07/04/2017 10:46 PM, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
> Hi Julien,
> 
> On 07/04/2017 06:28 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Sergej,
>>
>> On 06/27/2017 12:52 PM, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
>>> The current implementation of GENMASK is capable of creating bitmasks of
>>> 32-bit values on AArch32 and 64-bit values on AArch64. As we need to
>>> create masks for 64-bit values on AArch32 as well, in this commit we
>>> introduce the GENMASK_ULL bit operation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sergej Proskurin <proskurin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > ---
>>> Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   xen/include/asm-arm/config.h | 2 ++ >   xen/include/xen/bitops.h    
>>> | 2 ++
>>
>> This is common code and the relevant maintainers should have been CCed.
>>
> 
> According to ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl Stefano Stabellini and you were
> the only maintainers to put on Cc. I would appreciate it if you would
> point out what I am missing. Thank you very much in advance.
> 
>> This is not the first time we are trying to introduce GENMASK_ULL. I
>> would recommend you to read the following discussion:
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9665869/
>>
> 

While I agree with you that GENMASK_ULL reduces potential mistakes by
generating ULL masks manually, I don't think that we have more arguments
for introducing GENMASK_ULL this time than the last two times..

So, anyway, I will gladly put the other maintainers on Cc and retry the
submission one more time (it would be great if you would provide me with
the list of the respective maintainers, as ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl
apparently did not involve all parties). Thank you.

Cheers,
~Sergej

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel