On 12-2-2017 20:11, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Sat, 2017-02-11 at 22:45 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote: >> >> On 7-2-2017 23:08, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> It's some churn, but I think worthwhile - any objections? >> >> I find comparison operators more clear, but it is probably just a >> matter of getting used to it. What makes it worthwile? As you already >> did the churn I do not have any objections. Just curious. > > So to be honest, I actually pushed the change more or less by accident, > I'm happy to back it out again. I suspect the churn was not in pushing the change :-p I am fine with it. > My reasoning was something along these lines: First, I find it awkward > to always type the long form when we always have the same patterns. > Especially with the IN_RANGE() part, which I haven't even fully > converted I think. So that's my immediate motivation for adding it, but > as the de-facto maintainer now I'd also want people to really be able > to figure out which pattern they should use, regardless of whether > they're looking at old or new bits, so unifying it (towards the new one > because I'm a lazy bastard) seemed like a good idea. Agree that a mix of old and new macros is not what we want. I am lazy too so thanks. Regards, Arend -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
