[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAXkRocqFZgC-pWLc3V+VQLAVRvLXk+wTOhp+F4_WGRByjxhDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 04:50:11 -0700
From: Joseph Richey <joerichey94@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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
> > Currently, the script actually _encourages_ users to use the BIT macro
> > even if adding things to UAPI.
>
> How so?
Running checkpatch.pl with --strict gives:
CHECK: Prefer using the BIT macro
#26: FILE: arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hwcap2.h:9:
+#define HWCAP2_FSGSBASE (1 << 1)
It should probably just recommend the _BITUL macro.
> Also, in your commit messages you refer to patches with patchwork links
> - please use the respective upstream commit IDs instead. Grep for
> "Fixes:" here:
Ahhhhh, I figured there was a more standard way. Will fix.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists