On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 12:01:28AM +0300, Uladzislau Koshchanka wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > > > The problem I see with bitrev8 is that the byte_rev_table[] can > > seemingly be built as a module (the BITREVERSE Kconfig knob is tristate, > > and btw your patch doesn't make PACKING select BITREVERSE). But PACKING > > is bool. IIRC, I got comments during review that it's not worth making > > packing a module, but I may remember wrong. > > Do you really think it's a problem? I personally would just select > BITREVERSE with/without making PACKING tristate. BITREVERSE is already > selected by CRC32 which defaults to y, so just adding a select isn't a > change in the default. Can't think of a practical point in avoiding > linking against 256 bytes here. > > In any case, it just doesn't look right to have multiple bit-reverse > implementations only because of Kconfig relations. Ok, let's use BITREVERSE then. Could you submit your patch formally please?
