From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keller, Jacob E Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:25:59 +0000 Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH] fm10k: don't use BIT() macro where the value isn't a bitmask In-Reply-To: <1460665047-24907-1-git-send-email-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> References: <1460665047-24907-1-git-send-email-jacob.e.keller@intel.com> Message-ID: <1460665559.28210.6.camel@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org List-ID: On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 13:17 -0700, Jacob Keller wrote: > The FM10K_MAX_DATA_PER_TXD is really just using a bitshift as a power > of > 2 operation in an efficient manner. We shouldn't represent this as a > BIT() > because that obscures the intention of the operation. > > Signed-off-by: Jacob Keller > --- > ?drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k.h | 2 +- > ?1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k.h > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k.h > index fcf106e545c5..e98b86bf0ca1 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k.h > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k.h > @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static inline u16 fm10k_desc_unused(struct > fm10k_ring *ring) > ? ?(&(((union fm10k_rx_desc *)((R)->desc))[i])) > ? > ?#define FM10K_MAX_TXD_PWR 14 > -#define FM10K_MAX_DATA_PER_TXD BIT(FM10K_MAX_TXD_PWR) > +#define FM10K_MAX_DATA_PER_TXD (1u << FM10K_MAX_TXD_PWR) > ? > ?/* Tx Descriptors needed, worst case */ > ?#define TXD_USE_COUNT(S) DIV_ROUND_UP((S), > FM10K_MAX_DATA_PER_TXD) Note: this *will* cause a checkpatch warning, but as per discussion with Alex, I think this is a false positive. I don't know if there is a good way to fix it? Perhaps we could introduce some sort of "power of 2" macro that would leave in a single place, but I really don't know if that makes a lot of sense. I also am not sure how to make checkpatch.pl avoid the complaints for specific cases such as this. Thanks, Jake