[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170711170818.GA5013@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:08:18 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Jaya Durga <rjdurga@...il.com>
Cc: oleg.drokin@...el.com, andreas.dilger@...el.com,
jsimmons@...radead.org, john.hammond@...el.com,
bobijam@...mail.com, mingo@...nel.org,
lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] Staging: lustre :lustre: include :lustre_compat.h:
Prefer using the BIT macro
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:43:15PM +0530, Jaya Durga wrote:
> Replace all instances of (1 << 27) with BIT(27) to fix
> checkpatch check messages
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaya Durga <rjdurga@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_compat.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_compat.h b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_compat.h
> index da9ce19..686a251 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_compat.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_compat.h
> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
> * set ATTR_BLOCKS to a high value to avoid any risk of collision with other
> * ATTR_* attributes (see bug 13828)
> */
> -#define ATTR_BLOCKS (1 << 27)
> +#define ATTR_BLOCKS BIT(27)
Isn't this used in lustre's userspace code? If so, you can't use the
BIT() macro there :(
Please check before you redo this.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists