linux-kernel - Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 1/1] scripts/coccinelle: use BIT() macro if possible

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]

Message-ID: <20140427051428.GA2671@katana>
Date:	Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:14:28 +0200
From:	Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org>
Cc:	Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cocci@...teme.lip6.fr
Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 1/1] scripts/coccinelle: use BIT() macro if
 possible

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 02:29:46AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Using the BIT() macro instead of manually shifting bits
> makes the code less error prone and also more readable.

Does it? It is a taste thing, yet I don't think it makes the code that
much more readable that it is worth changing the whole tree.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)