On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:50:24PM +0900, Yun Levi wrote: > Thanks for kind advice. But I'm so afraid to have questions below: > > > - it proposes functionality w/o user (dead code) > Actually, I add these series functions to rewrite some of the > resource clean-up routine. > A typical case is ethtool_set_per_queue_coalesce 's rollback label. > Could this usage be an actual use case? Then create it as a patch in the series and in cover letter (0 message when you supply --cover-letter to your `git format-patch ...` command line) mention this. > >- it lacks extension of the bitmap test module to cover the new > > functions (that also wants to be a separate patch). > I see, then Could I add some of testcase on lib/test_bitops.c for testing? Sounds good to me. Most important is to have test cases, then we will see which test suite is the best fit, but as I said sounds like a good shot. And please do not top post in replies! > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:04 PM Rasmus Villemoes > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 02/12/2020 10.47, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 10:10:09AM +0900, Yun Levi wrote: > > >> Inspired find_next_*bit function series, add find_prev_*_bit series. > > >> I'm not sure whether it'll be used right now But, I add these functions > > >> for future usage. > > > > > > This patch has few issues: > > > - it has more things than described (should be several patches instead) > > > - new functionality can be split logically to couple or more pieces as well > > > - it proposes functionality w/o user (dead code) > > > > Yeah, the last point means it can't be applied - please submit it again > > if and when you have an actual use case. And I'll add > > > > - it lacks extension of the bitmap test module to cover the new > > functions (that also wants to be a separate patch). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
