Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Use BIT() for OPTION_* constants
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
        'Eric Dumazet' <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@gmail.com>,
        Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.co.jp>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@google.com>,
        Yuchung Cheng <ycheng@google.com>,
        Enke Chen <enchen@paloaltonetworks.com>,
        Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <cde3385c115ddf64fe14725f57d88a2a089f23e1.1635977622.git.cdleonard@gmail.com>
 <e869d690-939a-a5a5-1a8c-fe4b550b69ab@gmail.com>
 <0b48f1ae32ba49f38dcfe11f912c4ace@AcuMS.aculab.com>
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <60a45fd0-7055-e2ca-8254-1ccbc3fb7370@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Nov 2021 09:38:26 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0b48f1ae32ba49f38dcfe11f912c4ace@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 11/4/21 2:17 AM, David Laight wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
>> Sent: 03 November 2021 22:50
>>
>> On 11/3/21 3:17 PM, Leonard Crestez wrote:
>>> Extending these flags using the existing (1 << x) pattern triggers
>>> complaints from checkpatch. Instead of ignoring checkpatch modify the
>>> existing values to use BIT(x) style in a separate commit.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <cdleonard@gmail.com>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I guess checkpatch does not know that we currently use at most 16 bits :)
>>
>> u16 options = opts->options;
>>
>> Anyway, this seems fine.
> 
> Doesn't BIT() have a nasty habit of generating 64bit constants
> that just cause a different set of issues when inverted?
> It may be safe here - but who knows.

BIT() does not use/force 64bit constants, plain "unsigned long" ones.

Really this patch looks a nop to me.