From: Joseph Richey <joerichey94@gmail.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: trivial@kernel.org, Joe Richey <joerichey@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>,
Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-accelerators@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Don't use BIT() macro in UAPI headers
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 04:50:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAXkRocqFZgC-pWLc3V+VQLAVRvLXk+wTOhp+F4_WGRByjxhDQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YKZC9o8019kH76xS@zn.tnic>
> > Currently, the script actually _encourages_ users to use the BIT macro
> > even if adding things to UAPI.
>
> How so?
Running checkpatch.pl with --strict gives:
CHECK: Prefer using the BIT macro
#26: FILE: arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hwcap2.h:9:
+#define HWCAP2_FSGSBASE (1 << 1)
It should probably just recommend the _BITUL macro.
> Also, in your commit messages you refer to patches with patchwork links
> - please use the respective upstream commit IDs instead. Grep for
> "Fixes:" here:
Ahhhhh, I figured there was a more standard way. Will fix.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joseph Richey <joerichey94@gmail.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: trivial@kernel.org, Joe Richey <joerichey@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>,
Zhou Wang <wangzhou1@hisilicon.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-media@vger.kernel.org,
linux-accelerators@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Don't use BIT() macro in UAPI headers
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 04:50:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAXkRocqFZgC-pWLc3V+VQLAVRvLXk+wTOhp+F4_WGRByjxhDQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YKZC9o8019kH76xS@zn.tnic>
> > Currently, the script actually _encourages_ users to use the BIT macro
> > even if adding things to UAPI.
>
> How so?
Running checkpatch.pl with --strict gives:
CHECK: Prefer using the BIT macro
#26: FILE: arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hwcap2.h:9:
+#define HWCAP2_FSGSBASE (1 << 1)
It should probably just recommend the _BITUL macro.
> Also, in your commit messages you refer to patches with patchwork links
> - please use the respective upstream commit IDs instead. Grep for
> "Fixes:" here:
Ahhhhh, I figured there was a more standard way. Will fix.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-20 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-20 10:43 [PATCH 0/6] Don't use BIT() macro in UAPI headers Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` [PATCH 1/6] x86/elf: " Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` [PATCH 2/6] KVM: X86: " Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-20 15:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-05-20 15:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-05-20 10:43 ` [PATCH 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: " Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` [PATCH 4/6] uacce: " Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` [PATCH 5/6] media: vicodec: " Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` [PATCH 6/6] tools headers UAPI: Sync pkt_sched.h with the kernel sources Joe Richey
2021-05-20 10:43 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-20 11:07 ` [PATCH 0/6] Don't use BIT() macro in UAPI headers Borislav Petkov
2021-05-20 11:07 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-05-20 11:50 ` Joseph Richey [this message]
2021-05-20 11:50 ` Joseph Richey
2021-05-20 15:59 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-05-20 15:59 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-05-20 15:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-05-20 15:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-05-20 11:11 ` Mark Rutland
2021-05-20 11:11 ` Mark Rutland
2021-05-20 11:40 ` Joseph Richey
2021-05-20 11:40 ` Joseph Richey
2021-05-20 12:09 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-05-20 12:09 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-05-20 15:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-05-20 15:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-05-21 8:58 ` [PATCH v2 0/7] " Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] x86/elf: Use _BITUL() " Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-21 9:25 ` [tip: x86/misc] " tip-bot2 for Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] KVM: X86: " Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-24 12:28 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-05-24 12:28 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-05-21 8:58 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] drivers: firmware: psci: " Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-21 13:25 ` Mark Rutland
2021-05-21 13:25 ` Mark Rutland
2021-05-21 8:58 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] uacce: " Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-21 13:56 ` Zhangfei Gao
2021-05-21 13:56 ` Zhangfei Gao
2021-05-21 8:58 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] media: vicodec: " Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] tools headers UAPI: Sync pkt_sched.h with the kernel sources Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: suggest _BITULL() and _BITUL() for UAPI headers Joe Richey
2021-05-21 8:58 ` Joe Richey
2021-05-21 14:45 ` Joe Perches
2021-05-21 14:45 ` Joe Perches
2021-05-24 11:46 ` [PATCH 0/6] Don't use BIT() macro in " Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-24 11:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-05-24 12:29 ` Mark Rutland
2021-05-24 12:29 ` Mark Rutland
2021-05-24 16:34 ` David Laight
2021-05-24 16:34 ` David Laight
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAAXkRocqFZgC-pWLc3V+VQLAVRvLXk+wTOhp+F4_WGRByjxhDQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=joerichey94@gmail.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=joerichey@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-accelerators@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=trivial@kernel.org \
--cc=wangzhou1@hisilicon.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=zhangfei.gao@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.