Re: [KJ][PATCH] BIT macro cleanup

[Richard Knutsson]

Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 09:03:09AM +0530, Milind Arun Choudhary wrote:
>   
> > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
> > @@ -8,6 +8,9 @@
> >   */
> >  #include <asm/bitops.h>
> >
> > +#define BIT(nr)	(1UL << ((nr) % BITS_PER_LONG))
> >     
>
> I think this would be a disaster because something like
>
> 	BIT(123)
>
> would not even generate a warning.
>   
There were a discussion on this, at KJ, when BIT was first used with a 
modular operation. I said the same thing as you do now, but a big user 
of BIT is the input-subsystem who defined their BIT as above. Also it 
was mentioned that the compiler can only find the statical errors, a 
variable input can break it in runtime.
+ if we _really_ want to check the tree for such warnings, it is easy to 
remove the modular operation temporarily (and keep away of input/)

I don't say I like this, just that it is a choose between possible errors.
Richard Knutsson

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/