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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45E1AEFF.5050202@student.ltu.se>
Date:	Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:45:03 +0100
From:	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
To:	Milind Arun Choudhary <milindchoudhary@...il.com>
CC:	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...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

Milind Arun Choudhary wrote:
> why bitops.h? coz BIT qualifies for a "bitop" 
> & bitops.h is  inclued by kernel.h, hence accessible from every part 
> of the tree without mucb efforts
>   
I don't think there is anyone who objects to this
> c>but it is not sutaible for  those who want to go beyond this limit, 
> as they will not be warned 
>   
And this is the reason for this overly long thread :)
> So all we need is  people to be carefull  before passing anything to BIT
>   
This is the difficult thing to do
> so  now i think it should be ok to have
>
> #define BIT(nr) (1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG))
> #define LLBIT(nr) (1ULL << (nr))
>
>
> thoughts
>   
Since you guys seems in agreement about the silenced compiler-warnings, 
then I will rest my case.

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/