Re: [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions

Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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?
>   

Well, even defining the existing macros in terms of DMA_BIT_MASK would
be an improvement.  It's certainly not obvious at first glance that
0x00000007ffffffffULL is a correct 35-bit mask - it's something that the
compiler is perfectly happy to compute for us.

    J
-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions
    • From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions
    • From: Borislav Petkov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] Combine instrumentation menus in kernel/Kconfig.instrumentation
• Next by Date: [patch 0/4] Linux Kernel Markers
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 0/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions
• Next by thread: [PATCH 1/2] unify DMA_..BIT_MASK definitions: netxen local defs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]