Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753357AbaD0I6V (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2014 04:58:21 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:61422 "EHLO mail-wg0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753232AbaD0I6M (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2014 04:58:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [95.23.103.39] In-Reply-To: <20140427051428.GA2671@katana> References: <1398558586-28931-1-git-send-email-javier@dowhile0.org> <20140427051428.GA2671@katana> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:58:09 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 1/1] scripts/coccinelle: use BIT() macro if possible From: Javier Martinez Canillas To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Julia Lawall , Michal Marek , Nicolas Palix , Linux Kernel , Coccinelle Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Wolfram, Thanks a lot for your feedback. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 02:29:46AM +0200, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> Using the BIT() macro instead of manually shifting bits >> makes the code less error prone and also more readable. > > Does it? It is a taste thing, yet I don't think it makes the code that > much more readable that it is worth changing the whole tree. > I believe there is a reason for that macro but yes I agree with you that is a matter of taste and the it shouldn't be enforced. I'm doing a big refactoring for the GPIO subsystem and was told to use coccinelle so this patch was part of my learning. I posted it because I thought that it could be useful but I don't mind the patch to be dropped if that is not the case. Best regards, Javier -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/