Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

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

quoted

Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

Hm, I thought as was clear, but apparently I messed up explaining my
position:

1. I don't like BITWRAP name at all and I don't want anything like
that near input code. I think BIT is just fine.

Oh, I think I understand now. So the (in input.h):
#undef BIT
#define BIT(...
business is what you want to do? Well, that I will not object to.

No, #undefs may be barely tolerable in .c files but they are not
acceptable in core subsystem interfaces. If you do that you will never
know what version of BIT patricular module is using.

Yes, kinda. But wouldn't the compiler complain if you included both 
input.h and bitops.h (multiply definitions of BIT)?

quoted

 Your
patch with:
+#define BIT(nr)        (1UL << (nr))
+#define LLBIT(nr) (1ULL << (nr))
+#define BITWRAP(nr)    (1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG))
in bitops.h made me believe the #undef in input.h was just a temporarily
thing.

No. There is no "my patch". You are confusing me with Milind
Choudhary. 

Sorry about that. Am surprised I didn't notice it earlier...

I am saying that IMO input's BIT definition should be
adequate for 99% of potential users and that I would be OK with moving
said BIT definition from input.h to bitops.h and maybe supplementing
it with LLBIT. I am also saying that I do not want BITWRAP, BITSWAP
(what swap btw?) nor BIT(x % BITS_PER_LONG) in input drivers.

Is the reason for the modulo to put a bitmask larger then the variable 
into an array? I did just a quick 'grep' for "BIT(" in drivers/input/ 
and from what I saw, most (or all?) of the values are defined constants 
and those in input.h were noway near the limits of a 'long'.
The reason I don't like it with modulo is simply because it hides 
potential bugs (when x is to big). And what about the "1%"?
IMHO BIT should be as simple as possible.

Richard Knutsson