On 05/12/16 18:13, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:36 AM, Sebastian Frias <s...@laposte.net> wrote: >> Introduce SETBITFIELD(msb, lsb, value) macro to ease dealing with >> continuous bitfields, just as BIT(x) does for single bits. >> >> SETBITFIELD_ULL(msb, lsb, value) macro is also added. > > No. No, no, no. > > Didn't we have this discussion already? Or was that for one of the > other silly naming things? > > That thing doesn't "SET" anything at all. It generates a value, nothing more. > > So the name is completely unacceptable. It follows the convention of > GENMASK, so maybe GENVALUE? >
Thanks for your input. I was looking for suggestions on the name, thanks for yours, I will submit a v2 with the name changed as you proposed. > I also absolutely hate the stupid "big bit first" idiocy, but we did > that for GENMASK too, so I guess we're stuck with that retarded model. > Yes, I followed the same convention. > Yes, I understand why it happened - people look at register definition > graphics, and the high bits are to the left. > > But when you then read the documentation, it will still say things > like "bits 9 through 12 contain the value XYZ", because while > individual numbers are written MSB first, we actuall _read_ left to > right. You'd never give a range as "12 to 5", you'd say "5 to 12". > > Linus >
