On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:14:48AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > This patches remove redundant DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions across two drivers.
> > First off, consolidate dma bitmask definitions in the proper header file...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
> >
> > --
> > Index: 23-rc6/include/linux/dma-mapping.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- 23-rc6/include/linux/dma-mapping.h.orig 2007-09-17 17:48:20.000000000 +0200
> > +++ 23-rc6/include/linux/dma-mapping.h 2007-09-17 19:34:21.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> > #define DMA_48BIT_MASK 0x0000ffffffffffffULL
> > #define DMA_40BIT_MASK 0x000000ffffffffffULL
> > #define DMA_39BIT_MASK 0x0000007fffffffffULL
> > +#define DMA_35BIT_MASK 0x00000007ffffffffULL
> > #define DMA_32BIT_MASK 0x00000000ffffffffULL
> > #define DMA_31BIT_MASK 0x000000007fffffffULL
> > #define DMA_30BIT_MASK 0x000000003fffffffULL
> >
>
> Hm. Wouldn't it be better to define something like
>
> #define DMA_BIT_MASK(x) ((1ull<<(x))-1)
>
> and then define everything in terms of that (or just use it directly and
> deprecate the DMA_XXBIT_MASK macros)?
>
> J
That is more compact, I agree. However, the XXBIT_MASK macros have the
better readability, imho. And also, doing
$grep -Prin 'DMA_..BIT_MASK' * | wc -l
returns 383 on the 23-rc6 tree so removing them should be quite the logistical
challenge for the kernel janitors :). What do the others think?
--
Regards/Gruß,
Boris.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
