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.
prev parent 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