On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Wolfram, > > Thanks a lot for your feedback. > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Wolfram Sang <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 02:29:46AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> Using the BIT() macro instead of manually shifting bits > >> makes the code less error prone and also more readable. > > > > Does it? It is a taste thing, yet I don't think it makes the code that > > much more readable that it is worth changing the whole tree. > > > > I believe there is a reason for that macro but yes I agree with you > that is a matter of taste and the it shouldn't be enforced. > > I'm doing a big refactoring for the GPIO subsystem and was told to use > coccinelle so this patch was part of my learning. I posted it because > I thought that it could be useful but I don't mind the patch to be > dropped if that is not the case. Perhaps it could be useful in files that already use BIT somewhere? julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
