public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	jiri@resnulli.us, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add --strict preference for #defines using BIT(foo)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:53:31 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1415663611.8868.25.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141110153647.f98f7d60fa24bf3bf7cbc215@linux-foundation.org>

On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 15:36 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 13:15:39 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> 
> > Using BIT(foo) and BIT_ULL(bar) is more common now.
> > Suggest using these macros over #defines with 1<<value.
> 
> urgh.  I'm counting eightish implementations of BIT(), an unknown
> number of which are actually being used.  Many use 1<<n, some use
> 1UL<<N, another uses 1ULL<<n.  I'm a bit reluctant to recommend that
> anyone should use BIT() until it has has some vigorous scrubbing :(
>
> Is it actually an improvement?  If I see
> 
> #define X	(1U << 7)
> 
> then I know exactly what it does.  Whereas when I see
> 
> #define X	BIT(7)
> 
> I know neither the size or the signedness of X so I have to go look it
> up.

I'm not sure the signedness or type of X matters much
as the non-64bit comparisons are done by promotion to
at least int or unsigned int anyway.

The BIT macro makes sure a single bit is set.

The 'good' one is in bitops.h.  It also has #define BIT_ULL

include/linux/bitops.h:#define BIT(nr)                  (1UL << (nr))
include/linux/bitops.h-#define BIT_ULL(nr)              (1ULL << (nr))

The ones in tools/ are independent and should not be changed.
Excluding tools/, the others should probably be removed

$ git grep -E "define\s+BIT\b" 
arch/arm/mach-davinci/sleep.S:#define BIT(nr)                   (1 << (nr))
drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/include/rtl8188e_spec.h:#define BIT(x)                (1 << (x))
drivers/staging/rtl8188eu/include/wifi.h:#define BIT(x) (1 << (x))
drivers/staging/rtl8192e/rtl8192e/rtl_core.h:#define BIT(_i)                            (1<<(_i))
drivers/staging/rtl8712/osdep_service.h:        #define BIT(x)  (1 << (x))
drivers/staging/rtl8712/wifi.h:#define BIT(x)   (1 << (x))

> I have no strong feelings either way, but I'm wondering what might have
> inspired this change?

David Miller commented on a netdev patch where 1<<foo was
being used in a #define and suggested using BIT.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/337535/match=bit

Using BIT _is_ more common in recent patches too.



      reply	other threads:[~2014-11-10 23:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1415265610-9338-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us>
     [not found] ` <1415265610-9338-10-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us>
     [not found]   ` <20141107.151607.480474516800359791.davem@davemloft.net>
2014-11-07 21:15     ` [PATCH] checkpatch: Add --strict preference for #defines using BIT(foo) Joe Perches
2014-11-09  9:50       ` Jiri Pirko
2014-11-09 14:22         ` Joe Perches
2014-11-10 23:36       ` Andrew Morton
2014-11-10 23:53         ` Joe Perches [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1415663611.8868.25.camel@perches.com \
    --to=joe@perches.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox