On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:43:44PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote: > >I am saying that IMO input's BIT definition should be > >adequate for 99% of potential users and that I would be OK with moving > >said BIT definition from input.h to bitops.h and maybe supplementing > >it with LLBIT. I am also saying that I do not want BITWRAP, BITSWAP > >(what swap btw?) nor BIT(x % BITS_PER_LONG) in input drivers.
And I totally agree with Dmitry. The "% BITS_PER_LONG" doesn't hurt other users, and it's needed for larger-than-single-long bit arrays. > Is the reason for the modulo to put a bitmask larger then the variable > into an array? The complementary LONG() macro will tell you the index of an array of longs where the bit should be set. > I did just a quick 'grep' for "BIT(" in drivers/input/ > and from what I saw, most (or all?) of the values are defined constants > and those in input.h were noway near the limits of a 'long'. Well, many do not need it, but for example BIT(BTN_LEFT) does, and that's used in a lot of places. > The reason I don't like it with modulo is simply because it hides > potential bugs (when x is to big). That would be my only concern - losing compiler warnings. > And what about the "1%"? The 1% will need either LLBIT or an extra % 8. > IMHO BIT should be as simple as possible. -- Vojtech Pavlik Director SuSE Labs - 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/