[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220222211259.GC1782741@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdc.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:12:59 -0800
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"colyli@...e.de" <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 12:31:30PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > I'd only use something GENMASK() for bit ranges.
> > Even then it is often easier to just write the value in hex.
>
> Mostly it's the count of the repeated f that's difficult to
> quickly verify visually.
I admit I made this counting mistake in earlier versions of this series.
I think the earlier suggested "(1ull << 48) - 1" style in an inline
function seems good, and it doesn't appear to cause compiler concerns.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists