On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 05:04:10PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 06:49:59AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:59:06PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote: > > ... > > > +#define __GENMASK(t, h, l) \ > > + ((~0 - (1 << (l)) + 1) & (~0 >> (BITS_PER_LONG - 1 - (h)))) > > What's wrong on using the UL/ULL() macros? Nothing wrong except that in the !__ASSEMBLY section they all are useless. And having that in mind, useless macros may hurt readability. > Also it would be really good to avoid bifurcation of the implementations of > __GENMASK() for both cases. Not exactly. It would be really good if GENMASK_XX() will share the implementation (and they do). The underscored helper macro is not intended to be used directly, and I think nobody cares. > ... > > > -#define __GENMASK(h, l) \ > > - (((~UL(0)) - (UL(1) << (l)) + 1) & \ > > - (~UL(0) >> (BITS_PER_LONG - 1 - (h)))) > > This at bare minimum can be left untouched for asm case, no? As soon as we have to have different versions for the macro depending on __ASSEMBLY__, I would prefer to remove all compatibility black magic. After all, the <linux/bits.h> machinery to me is about the same level of abstraction as the stuff in <linux/const.h>, and in future we can try to remove dependency on it. This all is not a big deal to me. I can keep the old implementation for the asm, if you think it's really important. What are you thinking guys? Thanks, Yury
