Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup
From: Richard Knutsson <hidden>
Date: 2007-02-23 08:56:52
Also in:
kernel-janitors, lkml
Milind Choudhary wrote:
Hi all
working towards the cleanup of BIT macro,
I've added one to <linux/bitops.h> & cleaned some obvious users.
include/linux/input.h also has a BIT macro
which does a wrap
so currently i've done something like
+#undef BIT
#define BIT(nr) (1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG))
Is it advisible to move this macro to bitops.h with some other name
+#define BITWRAP(nr) (1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG))
& make the whole input subsystem use it
The change is huge, more than 125 files using input.h
& almost all use the BIT macro.It is as a big of change, but have you dismissed the "BIT(nr % BITS_PER_LONG)" approach? I really think this has to be broken down into a patch-set. <snip>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/fs/select.c b/fs/select.c index fe0893a..4bbe8ed 100644 --- a/fs/select.c +++ b/fs/select.c@@ -180,7 +180,6 @@ get_max: return max;} -#define BIT(i) (1UL << ((i)&(__NFDBITS-1)))
Are you sure you can just delete this one? <snip>
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/include/linux/input.h b/include/linux/input.h index bde65c8..e4203d1 100644 --- a/include/linux/input.h +++ b/include/linux/input.h@@ -908,9 +908,11 @@ struct ff_effect {#include <linux/fs.h> #include <linux/timer.h> #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h> +//#include <linux/bitops.h>
You added and commented it out?
#define NBITS(x) (((x)/BITS_PER_LONG)+1) -#define BIT(x) (1UL<<((x)%BITS_PER_LONG)) +#undef BIT +#define BIT(nr) (1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG))
Why did you change x to nr? The other defines seems to use x.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
#define LONG(x) ((x)/BITS_PER_LONG) #define INPUT_KEYCODE(dev, scancode) ((dev->keycodesize == 1) ? ((u8*)dev->keycode)[scancode] : \diff --git a/include/video/sstfb.h b/include/video/sstfb.h index baa163f..b52f073 100644 --- a/include/video/sstfb.h +++ b/include/video/sstfb.h@@ -68,7 +68,6 @@# define print_var(X,Y...) #endif -#define BIT(x) (1ul<<(x)) #define POW2(x) (1ul<<(x))
Maybe you can clean up POW2 as well (or define it as "#define POW2(x) BIT(x)") Also, it seems your mail-client swapped the tabs to spaces (aka not able to apply). Other then what I have commented on, it looks good. Richard Knutsson