Re: [PATCH 0/4] use BIT() macro instead manually shifting bits

[Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Alexandre,

Thanks a lot for your feedback.

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> <javier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hello Linus and Alexandre,
>>
>> While learning coccinelle towards doing the big gpio_chip/gpio_chip_ops
>> split refactoring I wrote this trivial semantic patch that replaces a
>> manual bit shift by using the BIT macro from <linux/bitops.h>
>>
>>     @hasbitops@
>>     @@
>>
>>     #include <linux/bitops.h>
>>
>>     @depends on hasbitops@
>>     expression E;
>>     @@
>>
>>     - 1 << E
>>     + BIT(E)
>>
>>     @depends on hasbitops@
>>     expression E;
>>     @@
>>
>>     - BIT((E))
>>     + BIT(E)
>>
>> When applying to the drivers/gpio subdirectory I got
>> the following clean up patches for some GPIO drivers.
>
> I personally find "1 << n" easier to read than a macro, but you are
> right that the macro is less error-prone. Nice use of Coccinelle btw,
> I should really spend the time to learn it.
>
> Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>

Yes I agree that the readability is a matter of personal taste. Do you
want me to send a v2 with a better wording on the commit message?

Best regards,
Javier
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html