All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
To: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	Milind Choudhary <milindchoudhary@gmail.com>,
	kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	linux-joystick@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:59:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45E036AB.9050303@student.ltu.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070224111124.GB3609@suse.cz>

Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:43:44PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>
>   
>> Is the reason for the modulo to put a bitmask larger then the variable 
>> into an array?
>>     
>
> The complementary LONG() macro will tell you the index of an array of
> longs where the bit should be set.
>   
This may be a little OT, but how come it is not done as an function? 
Maybe something like "(set/get)_long_mask(...)".
>   
>> The reason I don't like it with modulo is simply because it hides 
>> potential bugs (when x is to big). 
>>     
>
> That would be my only concern - losing compiler warnings.
>   
And what bugs me is that this will effect the whole tree for a feature 
used in only input, right?
>   
>> And what about the "1%"?
>>     
>
> The 1% will need either LLBIT or an extra % 8.
>   
Oh, that's true

Richard Knutsson

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
To: Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	Milind Choudhary <milindchoudhary@gmail.com>,
	kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
	linux-joystick@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:59:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45E036AB.9050303@student.ltu.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070224111124.GB3609@suse.cz>

Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:43:44PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>
>   
>> Is the reason for the modulo to put a bitmask larger then the variable 
>> into an array?
>>     
>
> The complementary LONG() macro will tell you the index of an array of
> longs where the bit should be set.
>   
This may be a little OT, but how come it is not done as an function? 
Maybe something like "(set/get)_long_mask(...)".
>   
>> The reason I don't like it with modulo is simply because it hides 
>> potential bugs (when x is to big). 
>>     
>
> That would be my only concern - losing compiler warnings.
>   
And what bugs me is that this will effect the whole tree for a feature 
used in only input, right?
>   
>> And what about the "1%"?
>>     
>
> The 1% will need either LLBIT or an extra % 8.
>   
Oh, that's true

Richard Knutsson

  reply	other threads:[~2007-02-24 12:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <3b44d3fb0702222056k1d2a9b57q69a3555a09a9058e@mail.gmail.com>
2007-02-23  8:14 ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup Milind Choudhary
2007-02-23  8:26   ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Milind Choudhary
2007-02-23  8:56   ` Richard Knutsson
2007-02-23  8:56     ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Richard Knutsson
2007-02-23 10:15     ` Milind Choudhary
2007-02-23 10:27       ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Milind Choudhary
2007-02-23 14:10       ` Richard Knutsson
2007-02-23 14:10         ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Richard Knutsson
2007-02-23 14:57         ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-23 14:57           ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-23 16:08           ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Richard Knutsson
2007-02-23 16:08             ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Richard Knutsson
2007-02-23 17:05             ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-23 17:05               ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-23 18:15               ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Richard Knutsson
2007-02-23 18:15                 ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Richard Knutsson
2007-02-23 18:37                 ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-23 18:37                   ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-23 19:11                   ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Richard Knutsson
2007-02-23 19:11                     ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Richard Knutsson
2007-02-23 21:58                     ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-23 21:58                       ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-23 22:43                       ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Richard Knutsson
2007-02-23 22:43                         ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Richard Knutsson
2007-02-24 11:11                         ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Vojtech Pavlik
2007-02-24 11:11                           ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Vojtech Pavlik
2007-02-24 12:59                           ` Richard Knutsson [this message]
2007-02-24 12:59                             ` Richard Knutsson
2007-02-25  3:39                             ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-25  3:39                               ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-24 19:11                           ` Milind Arun Choudhary
2007-02-24 19:23                             ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Milind Arun Choudhary
2007-02-25 15:45                             ` Richard Knutsson
2007-02-25 15:45                               ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Richard Knutsson
2007-02-25  3:37                           ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-25  3:37                             ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Dmitry Torokhov
2007-02-24 10:46   ` [KJ] [RFC][PATCH] " Vojtech Pavlik
2007-02-24 10:46     ` [KJ][RFC][PATCH] " Vojtech Pavlik

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=45E036AB.9050303@student.ltu.se \
    --to=ricknu-0@student.ltu.se \
    --cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
    --cc=linux-joystick@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=milindchoudhary@gmail.com \
    --cc=vojtech@suse.cz \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.