From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vojtech Pavlik Subject: Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:46:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20070224104638.GA3609@suse.cz> References: <3b44d3fb0702222056k1d2a9b57q69a3555a09a9058e@mail.gmail.com> <3b44d3fb0702230014x4ee4a1dewdc624c54b3635e15@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3b44d3fb0702230014x4ee4a1dewdc624c54b3635e15@mail.gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: To: Milind Choudhary Cc: kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-joystick@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 01:44:41PM +0530, Milind Choudhary wrote: > Hi all > working towards the cleanup of BIT macro, > I've added one to & cleaned some obvious users. > > include/linux/input.h also has a BIT macro > which does a wrap > so currently i've done something like > > +#undef BIT > #define BIT(nr) (1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG)) Since the previous definition of #define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr)) gives the same results as the above one for all reasonable usage scenarios (you don't want to supply nr larger than BITS_PER_LONG), why not just use the modulo version everywhere? The only problem I see is that the compiler would not warn where nr IS too large. -- Vojtech Pavlik Director SuSE Labs