[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220222165613.GB1497257@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdc.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 08:56:13 -0800
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, colyli@...e.de,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 04/10] linux/kernel: introduce lower_48_bits macro
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 05:50:45PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 08:45:53AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 08:31 -0800, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * lower_48_bits - return bits 0-47 of a number
> > > + * @n: the number we're accessing
> > > + */
> > > +#define lower_48_bits(n) ((u64)((n) & 0xffffffffffffull))
> >
> > why not make this a static inline function?
>
> Agreed.
Sure, that sounds good to me. I only did it this way to match the
existing local convention, but I personally prefer the inline function
too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists