On 08/03/2025 at 02:49, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 07:48:01PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 08, 2025 at 01:48:50AM +0900, Vincent Mailhol via B4 Relay wrote: > > ... > >>> /* >>> * Missing asm support >>> * >>> - * GENMASK_U*() depends on BITS_PER_TYPE() which relies on sizeof(), >>> - * something not available in asm. Nethertheless, fixed width integers >>> - * is a C concept. Assembly code can rely on the long and long long >>> - * versions instead. >>> + * GENMASK_U*() and BIT_U*() depend on BITS_PER_TYPE() which relies on >>> + * sizeof(), something not available in asm. Nethertheless, fixed >>> + * width integers is a C concept. Assembly code can rely on the long >>> + * and long long versions instead. >>> */ >> >> I don't like this hunk. You just introduced a message which is rewritten >> completely in the immediate followup. Can you come up in a better text >> here and/or there so it will give only + LoCs (or minimizes - to 1:ish)? OK. I will add an artificial early new line in the previous patch so that the diff is only one line. > And also note, that using up to 90 characters in the comments most likely fine > here. At least I don't see a problem with that. I re-wrapped the text to the 80 column and it now fits on three lines. 90 column wouldn't reduce the line count, so I am keeping it to 80. Yours sincerely, Vincent Mailhol
