Re: [KJ][RFC][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup

From: Milind Choudhary
Date: Fri Feb 23 2007 - 05:16:09 EST

On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?

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

I really think this has to be broken down into a patch-set.

> -#define BIT(i) (1UL << ((i)&(__NFDBITS-1)))
Are you sure you can just delete this one? users in this file

> diff --git a/include/linux/input.h b/include/linux/input.h
> index bde65c8..e4203d1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/input.h
> +++ b/include/linux/input.h
> @@ -908,9 +908,11 @@ struct ff_effect {
> #include <linux/fs.h>
> #include <linux/timer.h>
> #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
> +//#include <linux/bitops.h>
You added and commented it out?

> #define NBITS(x) (((x)/BITS_PER_LONG)+1)
> -#define BIT(x) (1UL<<((x)%BITS_PER_LONG))
> +#undef BIT
> +#define BIT(nr) (1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG))
Why did you change x to nr? The other defines seems to use x.
just messed it up while testing
would clean it after we decide to add a new macro
& before i send the final version.

> -#define BIT(x) (1ul<<(x))
> #define POW2(x) (1ul<<(x))
Maybe you can clean up POW2 as well (or define it as "#define POW2(x)
but want to go one step at a time
currently just cleaning up places where BIT macro is explicitly defined
the implicit uses [replacing 1UL << (x)] will be handled in another patch series
"use BIT macro wherever appropriate"

Also, it seems your mail-client swapped the tabs to spaces (aka not able
to apply).
attaching the patch file
bear with me for the time being

Milind Arun Choudhary

Attachment: BIT-macro-cleanup.patch
Description: Binary data