Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-29909-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 09:44:19 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Crescent CY Hsieh <crescentcy.hsieh@moxa.com>
Cc: Christoph Niedermaier <cniedermaier@dh-electronics.com>,
	jirislaby@kernel.org, LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de, lukas@wunner.de,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] tty: serial: Cleanup the bit shift with macro
Message-ID: <2024011824-squiggle-foil-8db4@gregkh>
References: <20231201071554.258607-2-crescentcy.hsieh@moxa.com>
 <20240117145623.3556-1-cniedermaier@dh-electronics.com>
 <2024011836-glimmer-seventh-f2a7@gregkh>
 <Zajd8fd/U3foRyLB@moxa-ThinkCentre-M90t>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zajd8fd/U3foRyLB@moxa-ThinkCentre-M90t>

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 04:14:41PM +0800, Crescent CY Hsieh wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 08:01:58AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 03:56:23PM +0100, Christoph Niedermaier wrote:
> > > >  struct serial_rs485 {
> > > >  	__u32	flags;
> > > > -#define SER_RS485_ENABLED		(1 << 0)
> > > > -#define SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND		(1 << 1)
> > > > -#define SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND	(1 << 2)
> > > 
> > > In the old definition (1 << 3) wasn't used.
> > > 
> > > > -#define SER_RS485_RX_DURING_TX		(1 << 4)
> > > > -#define SER_RS485_TERMINATE_BUS		(1 << 5)
> > > > -#define SER_RS485_ADDRB			(1 << 6)
> > > > -#define SER_RS485_ADDR_RECV		(1 << 7)
> > > > -#define SER_RS485_ADDR_DEST		(1 << 8)
> > > > +#define SER_RS485_ENABLED		_BITUL(0)
> > > > +#define SER_RS485_RTS_ON_SEND		_BITUL(1)
> > > > +#define SER_RS485_RTS_AFTER_SEND	_BITUL(2)
> > > > +#define SER_RS485_RX_DURING_TX		_BITUL(3)
> > > 
> > > Isn't it a break if number 3 isn't skipped here as well?
> 
> Sorry I might have misunderstood the meaning of "broke userspace".
> 
> In this case, does it imply splitting the "cleanup" patch and the "add
> feature" patch, or leaving the third bit unused? Or perhaps both?

You can not redefine existing defines to different values, like you did
here, that changes the user/kernel api of the system.

Luckily this isn't in any released kernel, I'll either revert this after
-rc1 is out, or take a patch from anyone else to do so if they want to
send it now.

thanks,

greg k-h