[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200228103339.4f36d6ae@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 10:33:39 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitfield.h: add FIELD_MAX() and field_max()
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 12:06:09 -0600 Alex Elder wrote:
> On 2/28/20 12:04 PM, Alex Elder wrote:
> >
> >
> > I find field_max() to be a good name for what I'm looking for.
>
> Sorry I wanted to add this but clicked "send" too fast.
>
> Yes it's the same as field_mask(), but that name only *implies*
> it is the same as the maximum value. I mean, they're the same,
> but the name I'm suggesting conveys its purpose better.
We got FIELD_FIT tho.. The comparison is part of the macro there,
and it catches negative values if they manage to sneak in.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists