Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] bitfield: Drop underscores from macro parameters
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-10-17 16:37:13
Also in:
linux-aspeed, linux-clk, linux-crypto, linux-edac, linux-gpio, linux-iio, linux-renesas-soc, linux-sound, lkml
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 12:54:09PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
quoted hunk
There is no need to prefix macro parameters with underscores. Remove the underscores. Suggested-by: David Laight <redacted> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> --- v4: - Update recently introduced FIELD_MODIFY() macro, v3: - New. --- include/linux/bitfield.h | 106 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------- 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h index 5355f8f806a97974..7ff817bdae19b468 100644 --- a/include/linux/bitfield.h +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h@@ -60,68 +60,68 @@ #define __bf_cast_unsigned(type, x) ((__unsigned_scalar_typeof(type))(x)) -#define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx) \ +#define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(mask, reg, val, pfx) \ ({ \ - BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask), \ - _pfx "mask is not constant"); \ - BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) == 0, _pfx "mask is zero"); \ - BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ? \ - ~((_mask) >> __bf_shf(_mask)) & \ - (0 + (_val)) : 0, \ - _pfx "value too large for the field"); \ - BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \ - __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull), \ - _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \ - __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2((_mask) + \ - (1ULL << __bf_shf(_mask))); \ + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(mask), \ + pfx "mask is not constant"); \ + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((mask) == 0, pfx "mask is zero"); \ + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(val) ? \ + ~((mask) >> __bf_shf(mask)) & \ + (0 + (val)) : 0, \ + pfx "value too large for the field"); \ + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(mask, mask) > \ + __bf_cast_unsigned(reg, ~0ull), \ + pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \ + __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2((mask) + \ + (1ULL << __bf_shf(mask))); \ })
Hi Geert, Thanks for the series! I agree that underscored parameters are excessive. But fixing them has a side effect of wiping the history, which is a bad thing. I would prefer to save a history over following a rule that seemingly is not written down. Let's keep this untouched for now, and if there will be a need to move the code, we can drop underscores as well. Meanwhile you (and David) can propose a corresponding rule in coding-style.rst and a checkpatch warning. That way we at least will stop merging a new code of that style. Thanks, Yury