Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/20] xen/const: Introduce _BITUL and _BITULL

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 25/04/2019 13:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 22.04.19 at 18:49, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The pattern _AC(1, UL{,L}) << X is commonly used in the headers to make
> > define usuable in both assembly and C.
> >
> > So introduce _BITUL and _BITULL to make the code slightly more readable.
> I don't particularly like the names, and I specifically object to
> the leading underscores. I'm afraid I don't have better
> suggestions for the names, but what I'd like to ask for is that
> at least the UL / ULL be somehow separated from BIT. One
> option might be something like
The _ match the other assembly macro we have defined in const.h. I understand 
you don't like the leading underscores, but I think consistency is better here.
The more keeping the same generic naming lower down the churn to import code 
from Linux.
> #define BIT(pos, sfx) (_AC(1, sfx) << (pos))
BIT() is already define in Xen and used in code coming from Linux. I would 
rather not change the prototype for this reason.
> albeit BIT may be a little too generic a name, yet something
> like DEFINE_BIT looks a little longish. But at least it would also
> allow e.g. plain unsigned (non-long) constants to be defined
> without yet another new construct.
See above the reason why those names.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel