Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:33:46 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions |
| |
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:14:48AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Borislav Petkov wrote: > > This patches remove redundant DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions across two drivers. > > First off, consolidate dma bitmask definitions in the proper header file... > > > > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bbpetkov@yahoo.de> > > > > -- > > Index: 23-rc6/include/linux/dma-mapping.h > > =================================================================== > > --- 23-rc6/include/linux/dma-mapping.h.orig 2007-09-17 17:48:20.000000000 +0200 > > +++ 23-rc6/include/linux/dma-mapping.h 2007-09-17 19:34:21.000000000 +0200 > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ > > #define DMA_48BIT_MASK 0x0000ffffffffffffULL > > #define DMA_40BIT_MASK 0x000000ffffffffffULL > > #define DMA_39BIT_MASK 0x0000007fffffffffULL > > +#define DMA_35BIT_MASK 0x00000007ffffffffULL > > #define DMA_32BIT_MASK 0x00000000ffffffffULL > > #define DMA_31BIT_MASK 0x000000007fffffffULL > > #define DMA_30BIT_MASK 0x000000003fffffffULL > > > > Hm. Wouldn't it be better to define something like > > #define DMA_BIT_MASK(x) ((1ull<<(x))-1) > > and then define everything in terms of that (or just use it directly and > deprecate the DMA_XXBIT_MASK macros)? > > J That is more compact, I agree. However, the XXBIT_MASK macros have the better readability, imho. And also, doing
$grep -Prin 'DMA_..BIT_MASK' * | wc -l
returns 383 on the 23-rc6 tree so removing them should be quite the logistical challenge for the kernel janitors :). What do the others think?
-- Regards/Gruß, Boris. - 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/
| |