On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:50:31AM +0100, Srinivas KANDAGATLA wrote: > You are right, It does not make sense to use BIT() macro for field which > has more than 1 bit. I think using mix of both BIT() and the old style > will make code look bit confusing to reader, Also no other mach code in > the kernel use BIT while configuring L2 controller. So am going to drop > the idea of using BIT here and leave the code as it is. I'd suggest putting a comment in the code to that effect. With the way "cleanups" get done, I wouldn't be surprised if this attracts a lot of people wanting to do a trivial "1 << bit" -> "BIT(bit)" conversions. One of the problems of open source is that you can say "no" to a patch like that until you're blue in the face, but it will eventually make its way in via some path. Just one of the reasons I consider BIT() to be evil and an inappropriate macro. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
