From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 1/3] IB/core: Align coding style of ib_device_cap_flags structure Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:31:20 -0500 Message-ID: <567B6708.1080307@redhat.com> References: <1450606571-15877-1-git-send-email-leon@leon.nu> <1450606571-15877-2-git-send-email-leon@leon.nu> <20151221062252.GE3860@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> <20151221080346.GA21779@infradead.org> <20151221163603.GF3860@phlsvsds.ph.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="V2Q0rbUUcKMPLk6Bvjdg2lKcHVhBwc03r" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151221163603.GF3860-W4f6Xiosr+yv7QzWx2u06xL4W9x8LtSr@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "ira.weiny" , Christoph Hellwig Cc: Leon Romanovsky , linux-rdma , Leon Romanovsky List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --V2Q0rbUUcKMPLk6Bvjdg2lKcHVhBwc03r Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12/21/2015 11:36 AM, ira.weiny wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:03:46AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:37:26AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: >>> You are right and it is a preferred way for me too, however the >>> downside of such change will be one of two: >>> 1. Change this structure only =3D> we will have style mix of BITs and= >>> shifts in the same file. IMHO it looks awful. >>> 2. Change the whole file =3D> the work with "git blame" will be less >>> straightforward. >> >> Honestly, the BIT macros are horribly, and anyone who thinks it's usef= ul >> really should read a book on computer architectured and one on C. >=20 > It would be nice if we were not having to do this for staging then. Al= so > perhaps it should be removed from checkpatch --strict? > > I'm not a big fan of everything checkpatch does, this being one of them= , but > Leon was trying to do the right thing here. >=20 > Where are the guidelines for when one can ignore checkpatch and when th= ey can > not? It would be nice to know when we can "be developers" vs "being ro= bots to > some tool". >=20 > I await Dougs guidance. Checkpatch? What is this thing you speak of? ;-) I use it, but not even all the time, and certainly not religiously. And I've never used strict mode. Even in non-strict mode it flags stuff that I ignore. As for the BIT macros, I haven't looked at their implementation. If Christoph thinks they are crap, then absent my own opinion on the issue, which I'm not inclined to go form at 10:30pm on Dec. 23rd, I'll trust his judgment ;-) --=20 Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD --V2Q0rbUUcKMPLk6Bvjdg2lKcHVhBwc03r Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWe2cIAAoJELgmozMOVy/dCBcP/2X+0+yM3RIF5nbNw6WhxNXm 62+8EsStHHmTjJo8dYUfo4Py4GfSOTp4JBMKtGef3LYAT++BPjO5sw6Cnx7CsJps J940/fBpcImTI9MeHNPATUSO5ngpkOHfk2xnjAvdzQkEHGYqykhTBp2KU+RxWyDt sSPBsJIt6FsPmWOtD7GiT0UlH71Uvrq99NsU1S6SHmLoDpVvJG5ETrHxpGXueFkC tK0C4c2JZtHuugNcIUi3ga4LdLs/abkXv4QrNA4l1b7aW5lm1A1mUidKI/yatm/4 lnaTsUi7KHmQtx8hgH9wbevNqG7uMzzkjVLcICe4iQrQOr+vDQYlzfwFqvGAy2WC +ztBaHuv6vC/IOgtTctOhzTf0LdIG92p26KaPvVycClBIbeWCdWshVYRpquAZqky x2Od8giQp4zqW03agu0oeHF9D3cFrQi7kW83c9EtCRSqkod06ooTiERi4ZNUIX4A Bv/nLm+oJGrJFlpfEpfVCaevIbuXxe5DHh7eQnQnQo3uTzqxNFN8cuCFvK950VRt 1Hjvd1D/zL26o1+52768+xAxmHF3fYgf92nz37NB1Gf0PwJJWjmjP9M4j7mBklNA WEdVQwjs7LdXMRR9mJbyQCpKrx4JCQJLClikRhj6rDRIxvMAVB+iNa0XJ98SprjC ilXwXxB7ACW5hJC4/6pS =vOl+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --V2Q0rbUUcKMPLk6Bvjdg2lKcHVhBwc03r-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html