Shouldn't those ^^^ also be marked as unsigned? And it's confusing to
have the style change halfway through the sequence; can you convert them
to (1U << n) as well?
Thanks, I have made a patch v3 and submit it, but I'm not sure should I
add "Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig<hch@xxxxxx>" because the code has been
changed,Thank you all again!
On 2022/10/31 21:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 09:48:11PM +0800, Gaosheng Cui wrote:
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -1384,19 +1384,19 @@ extern int send_sigurg(struct fown_struct *fown);
#define SB_NOATIME 1024 /* Do not update access times. */
#define SB_NODIRATIME 2048 /* Do not update directory access times */
#define SB_SILENT 32768
Shouldn't those ^^^ also be marked as unsigned? And it's confusing to
have the style change halfway through the sequence; can you convert them
to (1U << n) as well?
-#define SB_POSIXACL (1<<16) /* VFS does not apply the umask */
-#define SB_INLINECRYPT (1<<17) /* Use blk-crypto for encrypted files */
-#define SB_KERNMOUNT (1<<22) /* this is a kern_mount call */
-#define SB_I_VERSION (1<<23) /* Update inode I_version field */
-#define SB_LAZYTIME (1<<25) /* Update the on-disk [acm]times lazily */
+#define SB_POSIXACL (1U << 16) /* VFS does not apply the umask */
+#define SB_INLINECRYPT (1U << 17) /* Use blk-crypto for encrypted files */
+#define SB_KERNMOUNT (1U << 22) /* this is a kern_mount call */
+#define SB_I_VERSION (1U << 23) /* Update inode I_version field */
+#define SB_LAZYTIME (1U << 25) /* Update the on-disk [acm]times lazily */
/* These sb flags are internal to the kernel */
-#define SB_SUBMOUNT (1<<26)
-#define SB_FORCE (1<<27)
-#define SB_NOSEC (1<<28)
-#define SB_BORN (1<<29)
-#define SB_ACTIVE (1<<30)
-#define SB_NOUSER (1<<31)
+#define SB_SUBMOUNT (1U << 26)
+#define SB_FORCE (1U << 27)
+#define SB_NOSEC (1U << 28)
+#define SB_BORN (1U << 29)
+#define SB_ACTIVE (1U << 30)
+#define SB_NOUSER (1U << 31)
/* These flags relate to encoding and casefolding */
#define SB_ENC_STRICT_MODE_FL (1 << 0)
--
2.25.1
.
