On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 12:06:51AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > 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? Also, none of that 'while at it, do XYZ unrelated stuff'. One patch per logical change please.
