Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: add equivalent of BIT(x) for bitfields
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
References: <196dd443-e3c7-2c37-1dd1-bc1d249ea2fb@laposte.net>
 <CA+55aFyyiRjAhGGK_6Ap21zY+NRttQZGjdxpR9_DzA5X7cGobw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@htc.com>, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>, Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@st.com>,
        Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
From: Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net>
Message-ID: <1041cd17-5e96-61cf-16b3-82cf4d52101d@laposte.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 18:47:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyyiRjAhGGK_6Ap21zY+NRttQZGjdxpR9_DzA5X7cGobw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1370
Lines: 38

On 05/12/16 18:13, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net> wrote:
>> Introduce SETBITFIELD(msb, lsb, value) macro to ease dealing with
>> continuous bitfields, just as BIT(x) does for single bits.
>>
>> SETBITFIELD_ULL(msb, lsb, value) macro is also added.
> 
> No. No, no, no.
> 
> Didn't we have this discussion already? Or was that for one of the
> other silly naming things?
> 
> That thing doesn't "SET" anything at all. It generates a value, nothing more.
> 
> So the name is completely unacceptable. It follows the convention of
> GENMASK, so maybe GENVALUE?
> 

Thanks for your input.
I was looking for suggestions on the name, thanks for yours, I will submit
a v2 with the name changed as you proposed.

> I also absolutely hate the stupid "big bit first" idiocy, but we did
> that for GENMASK too, so I guess we're stuck with that retarded model.
> 

Yes, I followed the same convention.

> Yes, I understand why it happened - people look at register definition
> graphics, and the high bits are to the left.
> 
> But when you then read the documentation, it will still say things
> like "bits 9 through 12 contain the value XYZ", because while
> individual numbers are written MSB first, we actuall _read_ left to
> right. You'd never give a range as "12 to 5", you'd say "5 to 12".
> 
>            Linus
>