On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 03:20:22PM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:01:38 +0200
Andy Shevchenko [off-list ref] wrote:

...

Agree, the bitmap_onto() code is simpler to understand than its help.

I introduced bitmap_off() to be the "reverse" bitmap_onto() operations
and I preferred to avoid duplicating function that do the same things.

On my side, I initially didn't use the bitmap_*() functions and did the the
bits manipulation by hand.
During the review, it was suggested to use the bitmap_*() family and I followed
this suggestion.

I also would go this way, the problems I see with the current implementation are:
- being related to NUMA (and as Rasmus once pointed out better to be there);
- unclear naming, esp. proposed bitmap_off();
- the quite hard to understand help text
- atomicity when it's not needed (AFAICT).

I did tests to be sure that bitmap_onto() and bitmap_off() did
exactly the same things as my previous code did.

Yuri, what do you think about all this?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko