[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1416556554.6651.35.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 23:55:54 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Hariprasad Shenai <hariprasad@...lsio.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
roland@...estorage.com, JBottomley@...allels.com,
hch@...radead.org, swise@...ngridcomputing.com, leedom@...lsio.com,
anish@...lsio.com, nirranjan@...lsio.com, kumaras@...lsio.com,
praveen@...lsio.com, varun@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] RDMA/cxgb4: Cleanup Filter related
macros/register defines
On Fri, 2014-11-21 at 12:52 +0530, Hariprasad Shenai wrote:
> This patch cleanups all filter related macros/register defines that are defined
> in t4fw_api.h and the affected files.
Is there any real value in the FW_FILTER_WR_ prefix?
Does it need to be so long?
Perhaps it'd be nicer to read if
_S was _SHIFT
_M was _MASK
_V was whatever it's supposed to represent (_SET?)
and
_G was _GET
> +#define FW_FILTER_WR_TID_S 12
> +#define FW_FILTER_WR_TID_M 0xfffff
> +#define FW_FILTER_WR_TID_V(x) ((x) << FW_FILTER_WR_TID_S)
> +#define FW_FILTER_WR_TID_G(x) \
> + (((x) >> FW_FILTER_WR_TID_S) & FW_FILTER_WR_TID_M)
Why aren't the _V defines masked then shifted?
#define FW_FILTER_WR_<foo>_V(x) \
(((x) & FW_FILTER_<foo>_M) << FW_FILTER_<foo>_S)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists