netdev - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add --strict preference for #defines using BIT(foo)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:36:47 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jiri@...nulli.us,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add --strict preference for #defines using
 BIT(foo)

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 13:15:39 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:

> Using BIT(foo) and BIT_ULL(bar) is more common now.
> Suggest using these macros over #defines with 1<<value.

urgh.  I'm counting eightish implementations of BIT(), an unknown
number of which are actually being used.  Many use 1<<n, some use
1UL<<N, another uses 1ULL<<n.  I'm a bit reluctant to recommend that
anyone should use BIT() until it has has some vigorous scrubbing :(

Is it actually an improvement?  If I see

#define X	(1U << 7)

then I know exactly what it does.  Whereas when I see

#define X	BIT(7)

I know neither the size or the signedness of X so I have to go look it
up.

I have no strong feelings either way, but I'm wondering what might have
inspired this change?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html