On 12/21/2015 11:36 AM, ira.weiny wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:03:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:37:26AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>> You are right and it is a preferred way for me too, however the >>> downside of such change will be one of two: >>> 1. Change this structure only => we will have style mix of BITs and >>> shifts in the same file. IMHO it looks awful. >>> 2. Change the whole file => the work with "git blame" will be less >>> straightforward. >> >> Honestly, the BIT macros are horribly, and anyone who thinks it's useful >> really should read a book on computer architectured and one on C. > > It would be nice if we were not having to do this for staging then. Also > perhaps it should be removed from checkpatch --strict? > > I'm not a big fan of everything checkpatch does, this being one of them, but > Leon was trying to do the right thing here. > > Where are the guidelines for when one can ignore checkpatch and when they can > not? It would be nice to know when we can "be developers" vs "being robots to > some tool". > > I await Dougs guidance.
Checkpatch? What is this thing you speak of? ;-)
I use it, but not even all the time, and certainly not religiously. And
I've never used strict mode. Even in non-strict mode it flags stuff
that I ignore.
As for the BIT macros, I haven't looked at their implementation. If
Christoph thinks they are crap, then absent my own opinion on the issue,
which I'm not inclined to go form at 10:30pm on Dec. 23rd, I'll trust
his judgment ;-)
--
Doug Ledford <dledf...@redhat.com>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
