On 13/06/13 12:56, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > 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. Hmm... I can add a comment for them. > > 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
