linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] ARM:stixxxx: Add STiH415 SOC support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:56:40 +0100
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Srinivas KANDAGATLA <srinivas.kandagatla@...com>
Cc:	Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
	linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Stephen Gallimore <stephen.gallimore@...com>,
	Stuart Menefy <stuart.menefy@...com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Tony Prisk <linux@...sktech.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] ARM:stixxxx: Add STiH415 SOC support

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:50:31AM +0100, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote:
> You are right, It does not make sense to use BIT() macro for field which
> has more than 1 bit. I think using mix of both BIT() and the old style
> will make code look bit confusing to reader, Also no other mach code in
> the kernel use BIT while configuring L2 controller. So am going to drop
> the idea of using BIT here and leave the code as it is.

I'd suggest putting a comment in the code to that effect.  With the way
"cleanups" get done, I wouldn't be surprised if this attracts a lot of
people wanting to do a trivial "1 << bit" -> "BIT(bit)" conversions.

One of the problems of open source is that you can say "no" to a patch
like that until you're blue in the face, but it will eventually make
its way in via some path.

Just one of the reasons I consider BIT() to be evil and an inappropriate
macro.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/