Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:33:30 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@netronome.com>
To:     Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] bitfield: fix *_encode_bits()
Message-ID: <20180618133330.707f3efd@cakuba.netronome.com>
In-Reply-To: <1529353683.3092.32.camel@sipsolutions.net>
References: <20180618195618.17536-1-johannes@sipsolutions.net>
        <CAHp75VdY+PF0Edm_py+UiD3nz77HTQps_8uaRh+Sa3C+UKECKA@mail.gmail.com>
        <1529353683.3092.32.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Organization: Netronome Systems, Ltd.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 22:28:03 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > For me looks like for consistency we may add fake conversion macros
> > for this, such as
> > 
> > #define cpu_to_le8(x) x
> > #define le8_to_cpu(x) x
> > ...
> > #undef le8_to_cpu
> > #undef cpu_to_le8
> > 
> > And do in the same way like below
> > 
> > __MAKE_OP(8)  
> 
> I disagree with this. I don't see why we should have le8_encode_bits()
> and be8_encode_bits() and friends, that makes no sense.

+1