On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 10:05 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 2:02 PM William Breathitt Gray > <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 09:29:26AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Saturday, March 27, 2021, Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:32 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 4:08 PM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > + bitmap_set_value(old, 64, state[0], 32, 0); > > > > > > + bitmap_set_value(old, 64, state[1], 32, 32); > > > > > > > > > > Isn't it effectively bitnap_from_arr32() ? > > > > > > > > > > > + bitmap_set_value(new, 64, state[0], 32, 0); > > > > > > + bitmap_set_value(new, 64, state[1], 32, 32); > > > > > > > > > > Ditto. > > > > > With bitmap_set_value() we are also specifying the offset (or start) > > > > position too. so that the remainder of the array remains unaffected. I > > > > think it would not be feasible to use bitmap_from/to_arr32() here. > > > > > > > > > You have hard coded start and nbits parameters to 32. How is it not the > > > same? > > > > Would these four lines become something like this: > > > > bitmap_from_arr32(old, state, 64); > > ... > > bitmap_from_arr32(new, state, 64); > > This is my understanding, but I might miss something. I mean driver > specifics that make my proposal incorrect. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko I initially (incorrectly) thought that all of the bitmap_set_value() statements have to be replaced. But now I realised, only those specific bitmap_set_value() calls containing 32 bits width have to replaced. I will incorporate the above review comments in my next v4 submission. Regards Syed Nayyar Waris
