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

[Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
<javier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?

No, I think it's good as it is. Nice usage of Coccinelle btw. I really
should spend some time learning how to use it.
--
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