On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > 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 >> >> > & 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 >> You have a point there but I still don't think it should be in bitops.h. >> Why should we favor long-wrap before byte-wrap, so what do you think >> about doing: >> >> #define BITWRAP(x) BIT((x) % BITS_PER_LONG) >> >> in input.h? Otherwise I think it should be call LBITWRAP (or something) >> to both show what kind it is and enable us to add others later. > > Why would you not want to have what you call bitwrap as a standard > behavior? Most placed to not use modulus because they know the kind of > data they are working with but should still be fine if generic > implementation did that. > Both because I find the name not as expressive as simple "BIT(x % something)",
I was not talking about name (I hate BITWRAP) but behavior.
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 shoud use your proposal - BIT(x % DESIRED_WITH) and BIT should do modulo BITS_PER_LONG internally. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/