On 08/27/2009 09:58 AM, Martin K. Petersen wrote: >>>>>> "Boaz" == Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> + *lba = (u64)cmd[19] | (u64)cmd[18] << 8 | >>> + (u64)cmd[17] << 16 | (u64)cmd[16] << 24 | >>> + (u64)cmd[15] << 32 | (u64)cmd[14] << 40 | >>> + (u64)cmd[13] << 48 | (u64)cmd[12] << 56; > > Boaz> get_unaligned_be64() > > As you noticed further down in that patch I do generally use the > get_unaligned_* macros in "my own" code. > > However, when I update somebody else's code I try to match the existing > style. And in this case rest of get_data_transfer_info() is using > explicit shifts and to me it looks absolutely horrendous to mix the two. > > I generally avoid mixing cleanups and new functionality. I don't have a > problem with switching over to the macros, but in that case I think the > whole function should be updated. And that should be an orthogonal > patch. > I don't know. For me it is like checkpatch. I do not submit code over 80 chars even if surrounding code does. "The new code rule". I generally agree with what you say but I think there is a balance. Personally, I think this is over the balance point, but it's your call. Thanks Boaz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
