[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABxcv==8F2CghQKVDp==5Mx8-OBJnc+yZWEBqi7OFGij8OHaeg@mail.gmail.com>
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