On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+#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?

no..
but just looking at the number of places it is being used,
it seems that adding a new  macro would be good
which makes it look short n sweet

I really think this has to be broken down into a patch-set.

yes

quoted

-#define BIT(i)         (1UL << ((i)&(__NFDBITS-1)))

Are you sure you can just delete this one?

yes...no users in this file

<snip>

quoted

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?

quoted

#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.

just messed it up while testing
would clean it after we decide to add a new macro
& before i send the final version.

quoted

-#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)")

yes
but want to go one step at a time
currently just  cleaning up places where BIT macro is explicitly defined
the implicit uses [replacing 1UL << (x)] will be handled in another patch series
"use BIT macro wherever appropriate"

Also, it seems your mail-client swapped the tabs to spaces (aka not able
to apply).

attaching the patch file
bear with me for the time being

-- 
Milind Arun Choudhary