On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:17:10PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> FIFO_MODE is an macro expression with a '<<' operator, which > >> gcc points out could be misread as a '<': > > > > Yeah, no, NAK again. > > > > We don't make the code look worse just because gcc is being a f*cking > > moron about things. > > > > This warning is clearly pure garbage. > > > > I looked at this one again and found a better approach, matching the > check that is done a few lines later. Unless you find something wrong > with that one, I'd resubmit it with the fixup below. > > Arnd > > --- a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x.c > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x.c > @@ -789,21 +789,21 @@ struct adxl34x *adxl34x_probe(struct device *dev, int irq, > __set_bit(pdata->ev_code_ff, input_dev->keybit); > } > > if (pdata->ev_code_act_inactivity) > __set_bit(pdata->ev_code_act_inactivity, input_dev->keybit); > > ac->int_mask |= ACTIVITY | INACTIVITY; > > if (pdata->watermark) { > ac->int_mask |= WATERMARK; > - if (FIFO_MODE(pdata->fifo_mode) == 0) > + if (FIFO_MODE(pdata->fifo_mode) == FIFO_BYPASS) This is better, not because of GCC, but it makes sense logically; 0 is not a special value here. Still, I am not sure that GCC is being that helpful here. Checking result of shift for 0/non 0 with "!" is very common pattern. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html