linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: muxes: pca9541: use BIT() macro

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 5 Sep 2019 09:53:35 -0700
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Saiyam Doshi <saiyamdoshi.in@...il.com>
Cc:     peda@...ntia.se, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: muxes: pca9541: use BIT() macro

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:15:36PM +0530, Saiyam Doshi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:21:06AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > linux/bitops.h should be included when using BIT().
> 
> It's included from linux/i2c-mux.h and it compiled successfully.
> But if it's needed I'll update the patch and resend.
> 
> Just a question - What is the best practice in such case? Should the 
> header included explicitly?
> 

process/submit-checklist.rst says, as very first point:

1) If you use a facility then #include the file that defines/declares
   that facility.  Don't depend on other header files pulling in ones
   that you use.

Guenter