[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YUjD+sAkgjYkTE38@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:25:14 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Kent Gibson <warthog618@...il.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jack Winch <sunt.un.morcov@...il.com>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/8] configfs: use BIT() for internal flags
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 05:00:10PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> Anyway, I'm more interested in Al's comments on the implementation of
> committable items than bikeshedding about whether to use or not to use
> BIT() so I'll wait for those before revisiting this patch.
This isn't bikeshedding. Bikeshedding is when lots of people weigh in
with opinions on what you should do. This is you failing to listen
to the maintainer of the code you're changing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists