Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] efi: Make 'efi_enabled' a function to query EFI facilities

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Well, *I* am confused as heck.  They look like bitmasks, we normally use decimal numbers for bit numbers as a matter of style.

Matt Fleming <matt@console-pimps.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 08:08 -0700, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> On 01/03/2013 06:18 AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
>> > From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@intel.com>
>> > 
>> 
>> snip
>> 
>> >  /*
>> > - * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if
>possible, remove
>> > - * EFI-related code altogether.
>> > + * We play games with efi_enabled so that the compiler will, if
>> > + * possible, remove EFI-related code altogether.
>> >   */
>> > +#define EFI_BOOT		0x00000001 /* Were we booted from EFI? */
>> > +#define EFI_SYSTEM_TABLES	0x00000002 /* Can we use EFI system
>tables? */
>> > +#define EFI_CONFIG_TABLES	0x00000004 /* Can we use EFI config
>tables? */
>> > +#define EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES	0x00000004 /* Can we use runtime
>services? */
>> > +#define EFI_MEMMAP		0x00000008 /* Can we use EFI memory map? */
>> > +#define EFI_64BIT		0x00000010 /* Is the firmware 64-bit? */
>> > +
>> 
>> Your use of test_bit() and set_bit() imply that these macros should
>be
>> bit numbers, not bit masks. It'll work until you define a mask with
>an
>> integer value greater then 31.
>
>They're not intended to be bitmasks in the sense that no two bits are
>set in each constant (and I am aware of the upper limit).
>
>I have no problem changing the above values to bit numbers if that
>would
>be less confusing.

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.