From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-core] mlx4: Fix 1<<31 expressions Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 09:24:53 -0700 Message-ID: <20180209162453.GD7584@mellanox.com> References: <20180208233829.GA16128@ziepe.ca> <1518192109.2871.5.camel@wdc.com> <20180209161030.GA7584@mellanox.com> <1518193161.2871.14.camel@wdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1518193161.2871.14.camel-Sjgp3cTcYWE@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Bart Van Assche Cc: "parav-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org" , "linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 04:19:23PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Fri, 2018-02-09 at 16:12 +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > Any reason to use open code instead of using BIT() macro from > > include/linux/bitops.h which does the same thing? > > Personally I'm in favor of removing the BIT() macro from the kernel. That macro > is not useful and only adds confusion. Code that does not use that macro is > easier to read because one does not have to look up whether the BIT() macro > is defined as 1U << x, 1UL << x or 1ULL << x. Really? The rule is pretty simple: BIT(x) for x < 32 BIT_ULL(x) for x >= 32 && x < 64 Why do you care about what specific type the macro produces? Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html