Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 07:28:53 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        Pratik Patel <pratikp@codeaurora.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
        Michael Williams <michael.williams@arm.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@linaro.org>,
        "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coresight: do not use the BIT() macro in the UAPI header
Message-ID: <20200324062853.GD1977781@kroah.com>
References: <20200324042213.GA10452@asgard.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200324042213.GA10452@asgard.redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 05:22:13AM +0100, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> The BIT() macro definition is not available for the UAPI headers
> (moreover, it can be defined differently in the user space); replace
> its usage with the _BITUL() macro that is defined in <linux/const.h>.

Why is somehow _BITUL() ok to use here instead?

Just open-code it, I didn't think we could use any BIT()-like macros in
uapi .h files.

thanks,

greg k-h