linux-kernel - Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:37:47 -0500
From:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Richard Knutsson" <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
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

On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se> wrote:
> 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 ;))
>

Hm, I thought as was clear, but apparently I messed up explaining my position:

1. I don't like BITWRAP name at all and I don't want anything like
that near input code. I think BIT is just fine.

2. I don't want to use BIT(x % BITS_PER_BITLONG) as it will
significantly litter code in the input drivers. You want see whta bits
you are actually setting behind all these "% BITS_PER_BITLONG".

3. I think most of users could use input's implementation of BIT,
possibly using BIT(x % BM_WIDTH) format to further limit width of the
bitmap if needed.

4. LLBIT should be provided to users who really want long long.

-- 
Dmitry
-
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/