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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:58:09 +0200 From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@...hile0.org> To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> Cc: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@...g.fr>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Coccinelle <cocci@...teme.lip6.fr> Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 1/1] scripts/coccinelle: use BIT() macro if possible Hello Wolfram, Thanks a lot for your feedback. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote: > 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. > I believe there is a reason for that macro but yes I agree with you that is a matter of taste and the it shouldn't be enforced. I'm doing a big refactoring for the GPIO subsystem and was told to use coccinelle so this patch was part of my learning. I posted it because I thought that it could be useful but I don't mind the patch to be dropped if that is not the case. Best regards, Javier -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists