[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48B570D6.7070301@csr.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:20:54 +0100
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@....com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-usb <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Add helper macros for little-endian bitfields
Al Viro wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 06:37:43PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
>> > + * NOTE: When using multibyte bitfields, you need to convert the data
>> > + * from Little Endian to CPU before you can access the bitfield
>> > + * (to make it simpler):
>
> NOTE: When tempted to use multibyte bitfields on fixed-layout data, you
> need to look in the mirror, ask yourself "what will they do to me during
> code review for that?", shudder and decide that some temptations are
> just not worth the pain.
But why is this worthy of a crispy flaming? I've not seen anything
definite beyond a somewhat vague 'some compilers don't optimize
bitfields very well'.
The structure definition and the DECL_BF_LEx() macros might be ugly but
the code using the structures is clearer. For example,
get_random_bytes(&tiebreaker, sizeof(unsigned));
drp_ie->tiebreaker = tiebreaker & 1;
versus
get_random_bytes(&tiebreaker, sizeof(unsigned));
drp_ie->drp_control |= (tiebreaker & 1)
? UWB_DRP_IE_DRP_CTRL_TIEBREAKER : 0;
David
--
David Vrabel, Senior Software Engineer, Drivers
CSR, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Tel: +44 (0)1223 692562
Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WZ http://www.csr.com/
--
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