On 05/20/2015 01:50 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
On 21 May 2015 at 01:13, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/20/2015 01:41 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
On 21 May 2015 at 00:52, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/18/2015 01:14 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:
Replace (1 << nr) to BIT(nr) where nr = 0, 1, 2 .... 31
I don't like it, I think it hurts readability.
What do you mean by don't like, using kernel defined macro instead of
numerical assignments huts readability?
In the context of the patch, BIT(0) == (1 << 0) is obvious. But if I just
came across BIT(7) in the code, I'd have to check, whereas anyone would
immediately know that (1 << 7) is the 7th bit set. Hence, readability is
worse, and that's important.
I don't how that BIT(7) is tricky to understand as BIT(0) implies to
be set 0th bit.
If understanding of BIT(0) is same like to be as BIT(7) and these were
simplified
macro's used most of the code in kernel.
Well of course, if you know what BIT(7) is, you know what BIT(0) is. My
point is that I don't know what either of them are, I'd have to look it
up. Whereas anyone would immediately know what (1 << 7) or (1 << 0) is
without having to look further.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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/
