Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932112AbXBWV6d (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:58:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933224AbXBWV6d (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:58:33 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]:26832 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932112AbXBWV6c (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:58:32 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=a4J5doq+GhFbhqfxQ0wBqcGIS24IDjpYsJNtP7uthBmvC6zBsBpLK3S/KaLlTwIwtV4iu6xzzA4f0HDojo2B5wrDmHONvnSjmcSbEWcn3ATHSywQ54dHmVAYA1fhSnYayuxjQqrRiUzTeb7JSK5TQuAK7oy5QucYsZxr0XsCiYQ= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:58:26 -0500 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: "Richard Knutsson" Subject: Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup Cc: "Milind Choudhary" , kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-joystick@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz In-Reply-To: <45DF3C53.4030100@student.ltu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3b44d3fb0702222056k1d2a9b57q69a3555a09a9058e@mail.gmail.com> <45DEAC45.7090105@student.ltu.se> <3b44d3fb0702230215o2fbd5a3y25729e481a447149@mail.gmail.com> <45DEF5EE.4030002@student.ltu.se> <45DF1165.2080003@student.ltu.se> <45DF2F57.2080309@student.ltu.se> <45DF3C53.4030100@student.ltu.se> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1541 Lines: 39 On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson wrote: > Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > Hm, I thought as was clear, but apparently I messed up explaining my > > position: > > > > 1. I don't like BITWRAP name at all and I don't want anything like > > that near input code. I think BIT is just fine. > Oh, I think I understand now. So the (in input.h): > #undef BIT > #define BIT(... > business is what you want to do? Well, that I will not object to. No, #undefs may be barely tolerable in .c files but they are not acceptable in core subsystem interfaces. If you do that you will never know what version of BIT patricular module is using. > Your > patch with: > +#define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr)) > +#define LLBIT(nr) (1ULL << (nr)) > +#define BITWRAP(nr) (1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG)) > in bitops.h made me believe the #undef in input.h was just a temporarily > thing. No. There is no "my patch". You are confusing me with Milind Choudhary. I am saying that IMO input's BIT definition should be adequate for 99% of potential users and that I would be OK with moving said BIT definition from input.h to bitops.h and maybe supplementing it with LLBIT. I am also saying that I do not want BITWRAP, BITSWAP (what swap btw?) nor BIT(x % BITS_PER_LONG) in input drivers. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/