Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:11:15 +0100 | From | Richard Knutsson <> | Subject | Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup |
| |
Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > 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. Oh, I think I understand now. So the (in input.h): #undef BIT #define BIT(... business is what you want to do? Well, that I will not object to. Your patch with: +#define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr)) +#define LLBIT(nr) (1ULL << (nr)) +#define BITWRAP(nr) (1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG)) in bitops.h made me believe the #undef in input.h was just a temporarily thing. > > 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". As I said before, I thought it should be defined as BITSWAP (or whatever) in input.h and then there is no more "% BITS_PER_LONG" litter. But redefining BIT seems like an equally good idea; + eas(y/ier) to understand and simple to implement - another definition of BIT. > > 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. Agreed. > > 4. LLBIT should be provided to users who really want long long. Agreed. (As in the case of "BIT(x) (0x800...00ULL >> (x)) )
Richard Knutsson
- 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/
| |