On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 3:57 AM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to
> include/linux/bits.h in [1]. Since [1] BIT() has moved again into
> include/vdso/bits.h via [2].
>
> I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation
> detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use
> of include/linux/bits.h.
>
> [1] commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file")
> [2] commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO")
>
> Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx>
Looks sound to me.
I would prefer a bit of word-smithing the commit message by just
removing the references:
So:
> While include/linux/bitops.h brings in the BIT() macro, it was moved to
> include/linux/bits.h in commit 8bd9cb51daac ("locking/atomics, asm-generic: Move some macros from <linux/bitops.h> to a new <linux/bits.h> file"). Since that commit, BIT() has moved again into
> include/vdso/bits.h via commit 3945ff37d2f4 ("linux/bits.h: Extract common header for vDSO").
>
> I think the move to the vDSO header can be considered a implementation
> detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use
> of include/linux/bits.h.
>
And then drop references [1] and [2].
Andrew, what do you think?
Lukas
