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

["Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On 2/23/07, Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se> wrote:
> Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > I was not talking about name (I hate BITWRAP) but behavior.
> Oh, my bad :)
> >
> >> but mainly since it only enables wrapping of the long-type.
> >
> > I'd provde BIT and separate LLBIT for ones who really need long long.
> > People who intereseted in smaller than BITS_PER_LONG bitmaps shoud use
> > your proposal - BIT(x % DESIRED_WITH) and BIT should do modulo
> > BITS_PER_LONG internally.
> I agree that _if_ there is a "BITWRAP" then it should be long, but I
> don't see the reason for it to be in bitops.h when it is only input.h
> that uses it. + I find it different with BIT since it works as well with
> 'char' as 'long'.
> Also, I think it would be best if the name indicated it is a 'long'.
>
> Am a little bit curious why you would like it in bitops.h, but won't
> complain if you do (think you have noticed my view of it ;))
>

Hm, I thought as was clear, but apparently I messed up explaining my position:

1. I don't like BITWRAP name at all and I don't want anything like
that near input code. I think BIT is just fine.

2. I don't want to use BIT(x % BITS_PER_BITLONG) as it will
significantly litter code in the input drivers. You want see whta bits
you are actually setting behind all these "% BITS_PER_BITLONG".

3. I think most of users could use input's implementation of BIT,
possibly using BIT(x % BM_WIDTH) format to further limit width of the
bitmap if needed.

4. LLBIT should be provided to users who really want long long.

-- 
Dmitry