On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:50:35AM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2023-03-18 at 14:59 +0000, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > > It is a common code pattern to modify a bitfield by masking the field > > and performing a bitwise OR with the respective FIELD_PREP. Wrap such a > > task into a macro by introducing FIELD_MODIFY() which modifies the field > > specified by a mask from a bitfield by putting a val in the field. > > So I have no objection to adding this and you using FIELD_* macros, but > just wanted to say that personally I've come to prefer the typed > versions declared later in the fiel, and there we have > <type>_replace_bits() already. > > Hmm. And now that I mentioned that, maybe that means FIELD_REPLACE() > would be nicer as a name? +1 here with the similar thoughts. One thing I hate about macros like above mentioned is that Elixir or similar code browsing tools can't find. In net there are specific #if 0 ... #endif sections for mitigating that. Shouldn't we add the similar into bitfield.h? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
