* Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 11:04:13AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > So the most robust way to define such bitfields is via a pattern like this:
> >
> > enum devkmsg_log_bits {
> > __DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_ON,
> > __DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_OFF,
> > __DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_LOCK,
> > };
> >
> > enum devkmsg_log_masks {
> > DEVKMSG_LOG_MASK_ON = BIT(__DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_ON),
> > DEVKMSG_LOG_MASK_OFF = BIT(__DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_OFF),
> > DEVKMSG_LOG_MASK_LOCK = BIT(__DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_LOCK),
>
> Agreed with so far, I'd only drop the "_MASK" thing and make it even
> easier on the eyes:
>
> enum devkmsg_log_state {
> DEVKMSG_LOG_ON = BIT(__DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_ON),
> DEVKMSG_LOG_OFF = BIT(__DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_OFF),
> DEVKMSG_LOCK = BIT(__DEVKMSG_LOG_BIT_LOCK),
> };
It's just a nit, but generally it's nice to know the character of such values -
i.e. in case that it's a bit mask that has to be used with bit ops. That's more
important IMHO than brevity. This means that possibly buggy code like this
stands
out immediately:
if (devkmgs_log == DEVKMSG_LOG_MASK_ON)
while this one:
if (devkmgs_log == DEVKMSG_LOG_ON)
might slip through.
But no strong feelings either way!
Thanks,
Ingo
