Re: [RFC 5/8] x86_64: Add UV specific header for MMR definitions

[Andi Kleen]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 08:08:20PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:04:22AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > bitfields are only problematic on portable code, which this isn't.
> 
> it's still crappy to read and a bad example for others.  

I personally think bitfield code is actually easier to read
than manual shift/mask etc.

Avoiding bitfields is just a rule of thumb for portability, but that one
does not apply here.

I would say Joern's recent comment on religion vs common sense
for CodingStyle applies very well here.

> And last time
> I heard about UV it also included an ia64 version, but that's been
> loooong ago.

bitfield rules should be 100% the same between x86 and ia64

-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/