On 1/4/19 12:31 PM, Alberto Garcia wrote: > On Thu 03 Jan 2019 10:42:30 PM CET, Eric Blake wrote: > >> In my view, code generators make sense when used on code that is >> expected to change over time (a good example is QAPI because we add >> new commands every release; other places might be a generator to help >> deal with syscall handlers since newer kernels can add a syscall; or >> even the fact that we have used some powerful GNU make textual >> processing to make it easy to add files to particular subsets of the >> build with as few lines edited as possible), where the goal is that >> the generator gives you both a compact representation that is easier >> to edit, and that the expansion from the generator ensures that >> repetitive boilerplate is formed without typos. In short, if a >> generator results in a net reduction in lines of edited source in >> relation to the lines it produces, AND if the source that gets >> regenerated is likely to change, then it makes total sense to spend >> time on the generator. But when the amount of effort to write a >> generator costs as much as just hard-coding the list outright, >> especially when the list is not going to change (there really aren't >> any other powers of 2 within 64 bits), I'm not sure a generator adds >> any value. > > I agree with Eric.
Fine with me. I just thought that in the previous conversation (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10666975/#22302435) we have agreed that I'll send this patch. I've sent v2 already with Phil's suggestions included, please feel free to pull it if desired. Leonid. > > Berto >