From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" Subject: Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:57:52 -0500 Message-ID: References: <3b44d3fb0702222056k1d2a9b57q69a3555a09a9058e@mail.gmail.com> <3b44d3fb0702230014x4ee4a1dewdc624c54b3635e15@mail.gmail.com> <45DEAC45.7090105@student.ltu.se> <3b44d3fb0702230215o2fbd5a3y25729e481a447149@mail.gmail.com> <45DEF5EE.4030002@student.ltu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <45DEF5EE.4030002@student.ltu.se> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: To: Richard Knutsson Cc: Milind Choudhary , kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-joystick@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson wrote: > Milind Choudhary wrote: > > On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson wrote: > >> > +#define BITWRAP(nr) (1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG)) > >> > > >> > & make the whole input subsystem use it > >> > The change is huge, more than 125 files using input.h > >> > & almost all use the BIT macro. > >> It is as a big of change, but have you dismissed the "BIT(nr % > >> BITS_PER_LONG)" approach? > > > > no.. > > but just looking at the number of places it is being used, > > it seems that adding a new macro would be good > > which makes it look short n sweet > You have a point there but I still don't think it should be in bitops.h. > Why should we favor long-wrap before byte-wrap, so what do you think > about doing: > > #define BITWRAP(x) BIT((x) % BITS_PER_LONG) > > in input.h? Otherwise I think it should be call LBITWRAP (or something) > to both show what kind it is and enable us to add others later. Why would you not want to have what you call bitwrap as a standard behavior? Most placed to not use modulus because they know the kind of data they are working with but should still be fine if generic implementation did that. -- Dmitry