From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: sfc: an enumeration is not a bitmask Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:57:03 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20110517.141446.140687548350861625.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: bhutchings@solarflare.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:34274 "EHLO mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756345Ab1EQS5E (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 May 2011 14:57:04 -0400 Received: by gxk21 with SMTP id 21so270285gxk.19 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 11:57:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110517.141446.140687548350861625.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2011/5/17 David Miller : > An enumeration is not a bitmask, instead it means one out of the set > of enumerated values will be used. It's a decade-old kernel practice to use 'enum' to define typed constants, preferred over macros that convey no type information and disappear after cpp phase. So your assertion about enumerations is demonstrably not true, as it is often used in the kernel. Call it enum abuse if you want, but it is consistent with code all over the kernel. That said, I agree that warnings should of course be addressed in some manner. Jeff