RE: [PATCH 0/6] Don't use BIT() macro in UAPI headers

[David Laight]

From: Mark Rutland
> Sent: 24 May 2021 13:29
> 
> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 12:46:26PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:43:37AM -0700, Joe Richey wrote:
> > > This patch series changes all UAPI uses of BIT() to just be open-coded.
> > > However, there really should be a check for this in checkpatch.pl
> > > Currently, the script actually _encourages_ users to use the BIT macro
> > > even if adding things to UAPI.
> >
> > Yes.  In fact it should warn about BIT() in general.  It is totally
> > pointless obsfucation that doesn't even save any typing at all.
> 
> That's not quite true; the point is that if you use BIT() consistently,
> then even when you refer to bits 32 to 63 you won't accidentally
> introduce shifts of more than the width of int, and the definition will
> work equally well for assembly and C, which isn't true if you use `1UL`
> in the definition.
> 
> With that in mind it's shorter and clearer than its functional
> equivalent:
> 
>   BIT(x)
>   (UL(1) << (x))
> 
> So IMO it's preferable to use BIT() generally, or _BITUL() in uapi
> headers.

And then, suddenly the compiler warns about truncation of the
high bits when ~BIT(x) is used to mask a 32bit value on 64bit systems.

Once the C standard committee had decided to change from K&R's
'sign preserving' integer promotions to 'value preserving'
you always lose somewhere.

Personally I prefer hex constants - I can't count bits at all.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)