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
