On Saturday 24 February 2007 07:59, Richard Knutsson wrote:
Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:43:44PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
Is the reason for the modulo to put a bitmask larger then the variable
into an array?
The complementary LONG() macro will
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) %
On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#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
Milind Choudhary wrote:
On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#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
On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Milind Choudhary wrote:
On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#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
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
I was not talking about name (I hate BITWRAP) but behavior.
Oh, my bad :)
but mainly since it only enables wrapping of the long-type.
I'd provde BIT and separate LLBIT for ones who really need long long.
People who intereseted in smaller than BITS_PER_LONG bitmaps
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
I was not talking about name (I hate BITWRAP) but behavior.
Oh, my bad :)
but mainly since it only enables wrapping of the long-type.
I'd provde BIT and separate LLBIT for ones who really
On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
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
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
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
