On 12/11/2014 03:06 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 14:52 +0800, Yunzhi Li wrote: >> On 2014/12/11 14:37, Joe Perches wrote: >>> On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 11:57 +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > [] >>>> So If I have to write something on bit 0, I have to set bit 16. >>>> If I have to write something on bit 1, I have to set bit 17. >>>> If I have to write something on bit 2, I have to set bit 18. >>>> and so on. >>> To me it'd look better to use another << rather than a plus >> Like (BIT(13) << 16)? It looks strange, or could I just use ((1 << 13) >> << 16) to describe this bit ? > Up to you. To me, the BIT(x+y) seems odd. I think BIT(29) is better, since you have described in comments. > > > > >
