Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup

[Richard Knutsson]

Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> I was not talking about name (I hate BITWRAP) but behavior.
Oh, my bad :)
> > but mainly since it only enables wrapping of the long-type.
>
> I'd provde BIT and separate LLBIT for ones who really need long long.
> People who intereseted in smaller than BITS_PER_LONG bitmaps shoud use
> your proposal - BIT(x % DESIRED_WITH) and BIT should do modulo
> BITS_PER_LONG internally.
I agree that _if_ there is a "BITWRAP" then it should be long, but I 
don't see the reason for it to be in bitops.h when it is only input.h 
that uses it. + I find it different with BIT since it works as well with 
'char' as 'long'.
Also, I think it would be best if the name indicated it is a 'long'.

Am a little bit curious why you would like it in bitops.h, but won't 
complain if you do (think you have noticed my view of it ;))

Richard Knutsson

-
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/