Re: [PATCH v9 02/15] xen: introduce generic non-atomic test_*bit()

["Oleksii K." <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2024-05-16 at 12:49 +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > Anyway, I am not sure I understand which approach I should use in
> > this
> > patch. You mentioned that possibly test_and_() can't have a generic
> > form, meaning it won't be a set of arch_test_and_() functions.
> > 
> > So, can I rename arch__test_() and generic__test_() to arch_test_()
> > and
> > generic_test_(), respectively, and use the renamed functions in
> > _test_and*() in xen/bitops.h? Is my understanding correct?
> 
> You could. You could also stick to what you have now - as said, I can
> accept that with the worked out explanation. Or you could switch to
> using arch__test_bit() and generic__test_bit(), thus having the
> double
> inner underscores identify "internal to the implementation"
> functions.
> My preference would be in backwards order of what I have just
> enumerated
> as possible options. I wonder whether really no-one else has any
> opinion
> here ...

I see that __test_bit() doesn't exist now and perhaps won't exist at
all, but in this patch we are providing the generic for test_bit(), not
__test_bit(). Thereby according to provided by me naming for test_bit()
should be defined using {generic, arch}_test_bit().

~ Oleksii