On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 07:23 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 03:20:37AM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 06:09 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > -#define MLX5_FS_MAX_TYPES 10 > > > -#define MLX5_FS_MAX_ENTRIES 32000UL > > > +#define MLX5_FS_MAX_TYPES 6 > > > +#define MLX5_FS_MAX_ENTRIES BIT(16) > > > > Hello Leon and Maor, > > > > The use of the BIT() macro here looks misleading to me. Elsewhere in the > > kernel BIT() is used to represent a bitmask. My understanding is that > > MLX5_FS_MAX_ENTRIES is not a bitmask but a value? > > Hello Bart, > > I agree with you that the name "MAX_ENTRIES" is misleading. This define > MLX5_FS_MAX_ENTRIES is needed to compare num_entries with max_table_size > which is represented in BIT() format. The max_table was added in previous > patch and we thought that it will be much convenient for the reader to > compare the same BIT(..) constructions. > > If you think that we abused the BIT() macro, let me know and I'll send > updated version (without BIT()). Hello Leon, It's not that important to me, but does MLX5_FS_MAX_ENTRIES represent a number or a bitmask? To me the name "MLX5_FS_MAX_ENTRIES" suggests that it is a number and using BIT() suggests that it's a bitmask. This seems contradictory to me. Thanks, Bart.-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
