On 05/16/2014 07:06 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 05/16/2014 06:37 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> >>>> - ar->free_vdev_map &= ~BIT(arvif->vdev_id); >>>> + ar->free_vdev_map &= ~(1 << arvif->vdev_id); >>> >>> Why remove the BIT()? Not that it matters much, I just think it's easier >>> to read when BIT() macro is used. Would be good to convert all cases to >>> use BIT anyway, but that's for a separate patch. >> >> BIT doesn't work on 64-bit numbers (ie, if vdev_id > 31) > > Oh, I didn't know that. Too bad, but then removing it makes sense. > >> and it takes a long time to figure out exactly what it does (try >> grepping for BIT). Open-coding means much easier to fully understand >> the code. > > All Linux engineers should know what BIT() does. If not, they should > learn that ;) Yeah, but see your comment above :P Pain in the ass to track down the difference between (1 << x) and (1LLU << x), and even worse when it's hidden behind a macro. Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
