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 13:37:47 -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> <45DF2F57.2080309@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: <45DF2F57.2080309@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: > > I was not talking about name (I hate BITWRAP) but behavior. > Oh, my bad :) > > > >> 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. > I agree that _if_ there is a "BITWRAP" then it should be long, but I > don't see the reason for it to be in bitops.h when it is only input.h > that uses it. + I find it different with BIT since it works as well with > 'char' as 'long'. > Also, I think it would be best if the name indicated it is a 'long'. > > Am a little bit curious why you would like it in bitops.h, but won't > complain if you do (think you have noticed my view of it ;)) > Hm, I thought as was clear, but apparently I messed up explaining my position: 1. I don't like BITWRAP name at all and I don't want anything like that near input code. I think BIT is just fine. 2. I don't want to use BIT(x % BITS_PER_BITLONG) as it will significantly litter code in the input drivers. You want see whta bits you are actually setting behind all these "% BITS_PER_BITLONG". 3. I think most of users could use input's implementation of BIT, possibly using BIT(x % BM_WIDTH) format to further limit width of the bitmap if needed. 4. LLBIT should be provided to users who really want long long. -- Dmitry