[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45DF2F57.2080309@student.ltu.se>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:15:51 +0100
From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC: Milind Choudhary <milindchoudhary@...il.com>,
kernel-janitors@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-input@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
linux-joystick@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup
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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists