[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YKZC9o8019kH76xS@zn.tnic>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 13:07:34 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Joe Richey <joerichey94@...il.com>
Cc: trivial@...nel.org, Joe Richey <joerichey@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...aro.org>,
Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-accelerators@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Don't use BIT() macro in UAPI headers
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:43:37AM -0700, Joe Richey wrote:
> This patch series changes all UAPI uses of BIT() to just be open-coded.
> However, there really should be a check for this in checkpatch.pl
Wanna add that check too?
> Currently, the script actually _encourages_ users to use the BIT macro
> even if adding things to UAPI.
How so?
This is with your first patch:
$ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl /tmp/bit.01
total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 lines checked
/tmp/bit.01 has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
Also, in your commit messages you refer to patches with patchwork links
- please use the respective upstream commit IDs instead. Grep for
"Fixes:" here:
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
for more info.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists