[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXoZdhSydMpbW8B6oQJNnpYpTxmhHrV5CJNTUP7T1KsoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2021 16:29:30 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
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
Hi Christoph,
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 4:09 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 04:05:03PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > For better readability and maintenance: use the BIT() macro for flag
> > definitions.
>
> NAK. BIT() is the stupidest macro in the kernel and shall not be used
> ever. And I'm pretty sure we had this discussion a few times.
Care to explain why it is a stupid macro?
TIA!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists