lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] bitfields API
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 08:32:23PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> How do you feel about this patch? It's all about making kmemcheck more
>> useful... and not much else. Does it have any chance of entering the
>> kernel along with kmemcheck (when/if that happens)?
>
> DEFINE_BITFIELD is horrible.
>
>> @@ -285,11 +286,12 @@ struct sk_buff {
>> };
>> };
>> __u32 priority;
>> - __u8 local_df:1,
>> + DEFINE_BITFIELD(__u8, flags1,
>> + local_df:1,
>> cloned:1,
>> ip_summed:2,
>> nohdr:1,
>> - nfctinfo:3;
>> + nfctinfo:3);
>> __u8 pkt_type:3,
>> fclone:2,
>> ipvs_property:1,

Ok, that's constructive :-P

Can we skip the type and always assume that it should be __u8/uint8_t?
I read somewhere that bitfields should anyway always be 1 byte wide if
the bitfield should be "portable". Would it help (to make this less
horrible) to omit the type declaration and have just the bitfield
members as arguments to the macro?

Thanks,


Vegard

--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-28 20:49    [W:0.059 / U:31.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site