On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:51:36 -0800 Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > On Feb 3, 2010, at 10:12, Dirk Wallenstein wrote: > > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:44:48 -0800 Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > >> I'd prefer to see this written as: > >> > >> (1L<<7) - 1L > > > > If it's a value I'd like to have it in sync with the code for easy > > comparison. I can change both if you like. Alternatively I could use > > the > > OR-ed other masks. > > I think (next - 1) is less prone to human error when adding bits in > the future. That's my main concern. > > I think OR-ing all the others does not scale well and also suffers > from the same human-error aspect. > > Consistency is great. Add the change to the header as well, I think > that's a good idea. > > Reviewed-by: Jeremy Huddleston <[email protected]>
I've done this for all of kbproto. Just a little procedural question. I have now patches that are related, but in different components. Should I put them into one thread of patches, optionally with a cover letter without component? If I have a patch that requires a previous one that is not yet in the archives, do I just vaguely refer to that patch, or wait. Greetings, Dirk _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
