Hi,
On 25/04/2019 13:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 22.04.19 at 18:49, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
The pattern _AC(1, UL{,L}) << X is commonly used in the headers to make
define usuable in both assembly and C.
So introduce _BITUL and _BITULL to make the code slightly more readable.
I don't particularly like the names, and I specifically object to
the leading underscores. I'm afraid I don't have better
suggestions for the names, but what I'd like to ask for is that
at least the UL / ULL be somehow separated from BIT. One
option might be something like
The _ match the other assembly macro we have defined in const.h. I understand
you don't like the leading underscores, but I think consistency is better here.
The more keeping the same generic naming lower down the churn to import code
from Linux.
#define BIT(pos, sfx) (_AC(1, sfx) << (pos))
BIT() is already define in Xen and used in code coming from Linux. I would
rather not change the prototype for this reason.
albeit BIT may be a little too generic a name, yet something
like DEFINE_BIT looks a little longish. But at least it would also
allow e.g. plain unsigned (non-long) constants to be defined
without yet another new construct.
See above the reason why those names.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
