On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 at 04:36, Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 6/20/23 13:15, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 12:47, Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Use the BIT(n) macro instead of (1<<n), no functional change. > >> Regex 's@(1 \?<< \?\([0-9A-Z_]\+\))@BIT(\1)' . > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> > > > > I don't think the benefit of this change is worth it. For example, > > it's quite useful to run a git blame to see the history of what has > > happened. > > Understood. > > git blame does allow you to specify either --since or revision range though. Yes, but I think you get my point. > > > So, sorry, but I am not going to pick this up - or any other similar > > changes, at least for the core layer. > > Is this a policy of the mmc subsystem to reject all code clean ups then ? Of course it isn't, I regularly pick up clean ups. My point here is that the clean-up should make the code better, in some way. I don't think converting to the BIT macro helps in this regard. It may be preferred to use the BIT macro by some and by others not. Kind regards Uffe
