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 12:05:33 -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> <45DF1165.2080003@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: <45DF1165.2080003@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: > Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > 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. > > > Both because I find the name not as expressive as simple "BIT(x % > something)", I was not talking about name (I hate BITWRAP) but behavior. > but mainly since it only enables wrapping of the long-type. I'd provde BIT and separate LLBIT for ones who really need long long. People who intereseted in smaller than BITS_PER_LONG bitmaps shoud use your proposal - BIT(x % DESIRED_WITH) and BIT should do modulo BITS_PER_LONG internally. -- Dmitry