Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753644AbaD0KZA (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2014 06:25:00 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:57250 "EHLO mail-wi0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751203AbaD0KY7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2014 06:24:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [95.23.103.39] In-Reply-To: References: <1398558586-28931-1-git-send-email-javier@dowhile0.org> <20140427051428.GA2671@katana> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:24:57 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Cocci] [PATCH 1/1] scripts/coccinelle: use BIT() macro if possible From: Javier Martinez Canillas To: Julia Lawall Cc: Wolfram Sang , 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 Julia, On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> 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. > > Perhaps it could be useful in files that already use BIT somewhere? > Well the semantic patch already has a rule that checks if the file includes so files that don't include this header will be skipped. I've checked and in most cases when that header is included is because at least the BIT macro is used once on the file. My guess is that the original author included the header and used the macro but other people modifying the file after its original creation just used 1 << n instead. But as I said, I've no strong opinion about this patch. I just used to learn the basics of SmPL and to cleanup a driver I maintain and thought it was a good touch to post it in case more people find it useful. > julia Thanks a lot and 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/