linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] usb: dwc3: use BIT() macro where 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <41704853-e64b-9666-ddd6-0f625829ff58@ti.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:33:41 +0200
From:   Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
To:     Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
CC:     <Peter.Chen@....com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        <garsilva@...eddedor.com>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] usb: dwc3: use BIT() macro where possible

On 16/02/17 10:54, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com> writes:
>> On 15/02/17 13:44, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com> writes:
>>>> To avoid checkpatch warnings with new patches let's
>>>> start using the BIT() macro wherever possible.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h      | 192 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>>  drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-omap.c |  48 +++++------
>>>>  drivers/usb/dwc3/gadget.h    |  20 ++---
>>>>  3 files changed, 130 insertions(+), 130 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>>>> index 14b7602..d514dca 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.h
>>>> @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
>>>>  #define DWC3_DEVICE_EVENT_OVERFLOW		11
>>>>  
>>>>  #define DWC3_GEVNTCOUNT_MASK	0xfffc
>>>> -#define DWC3_GEVNTCOUNT_EHB	(1 << 31)
>>>> +#define DWC3_GEVNTCOUNT_EHB	BIT(31)
>>>
>>> don't you need to include <linux/bitops.h> for this?
>>>
>>
>> I didn't get any build errors though.
> 
> indirect inclusion. Problems will show up only when headers are moved
> around ;-)
> 
Yes. better to include it. I'll send a v2 for this.

-- 
cheers,
-roger