On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 12:55 PM Andrew Jeffery <andrew@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 May 2021, at 16:28, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I mostly did this because initially I wrapped the commit message and
> checkpatch spat out errors when it failed to properly identify the
> commit description for [1]. But, leaving the description unwrapped
> inline in the text feels untidy as it's just a work-around to dodge a
> shortcoming of checkpatch.
>
> With the reference style the long line moves out of the way and
> checkpatch can identify the commit descriptions, at the expense of
> complaints about line length instead. But the line length issue was
> only a warning and so didn't seem quite so critical.
>
> While the referencing style is terse I felt it was a reasonable
> compromise that didn't involve fixing checkpatch to fix the checkpatch
> documentation :/
>
Hey,
Can you share which wrap around caused the checkpatch errors
to be emitted? We can try to fix that.
I was able to wrap it without checkpatch complaining. You might consider
replacing it with this if you wish?
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 an implementation
detail, so for now update the checkpatch documentation to recommend use
of include/linux/bits.h.
Thanks,
Dwaipayan.
