Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:37:47 -0500 | From | "Dmitry Torokhov" <> | Subject | Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup |
| |
On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se> wrote: > Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > I was not talking about name (I hate BITWRAP) but behavior. > Oh, my bad :) > > > >> but mainly since it only enables wrapping of the long-type. > > > > I'd provde BIT and separate LLBIT for ones who really need long long. > > People who intereseted in smaller than BITS_PER_LONG bitmaps shoud use > > your proposal - BIT(x % DESIRED_WITH) and BIT should do modulo > > BITS_PER_LONG internally. > I agree that _if_ there is a "BITWRAP" then it should be long, but I > don't see the reason for it to be in bitops.h when it is only input.h > that uses it. + I find it different with BIT since it works as well with > 'char' as 'long'. > Also, I think it would be best if the name indicated it is a 'long'. > > Am a little bit curious why you would like it in bitops.h, but won't > complain if you do (think you have noticed my view of it ;)) >
Hm, I thought as was clear, but apparently I messed up explaining my position:
1. I don't like BITWRAP name at all and I don't want anything like that near input code. I think BIT is just fine.
2. I don't want to use BIT(x % BITS_PER_BITLONG) as it will significantly litter code in the input drivers. You want see whta bits you are actually setting behind all these "% BITS_PER_BITLONG".
3. I think most of users could use input's implementation of BIT, possibly using BIT(x % BM_WIDTH) format to further limit width of the bitmap if needed.
4. LLBIT should be provided to users who really want long long.
-- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |