From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF44C43381 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:20:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337EC2063F for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 07:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="izA55sgu" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726610AbfCNHUF (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Mar 2019 03:20:05 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f195.google.com ([209.85.210.195]:40227 "EHLO mail-pf1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726582AbfCNHUF (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Mar 2019 03:20:05 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f195.google.com with SMTP id y124so3228501pfy.7; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 00:20:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ugOOPlTFRgUc0dPFg2PyX5U2PNiJO93N55npz7c+UJo=; b=izA55sgua6WVfa/6GcVkOVHcrkvzZVFeZ8/7TY5Q3EhVgaTXilRTdDcYZ9piYPF0RR fm6d9Mc5Q4mc6b6wxWwDLFbcb2Wd9PDeYBqlYtS/Ga/BIKtCWsPeqLIaMOg9afcrMAfd A+Bg9Rm3JqRljn+OTM53plVWUaAJrFBrmFkxN79SgbCbNK9fPBWBdRWEZvPc33S4Gmym 5gy/1ZUNv2Kw/ns+a1/7MMOFPfu9kb87j7pp7MFbsLQ8BV0XWZ0vr3i7cLqsuJ3gXRGm xs4IXGLXmGAE0R6I31QcTs/SWcbZQFCDyIu8OAoBvPd+hlGttQDjqTjr8EFiqxMBcc4Q kObw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ugOOPlTFRgUc0dPFg2PyX5U2PNiJO93N55npz7c+UJo=; b=rC7cew6kNCtMXQP6n49fXn2htGTlbrdFGk1PJ/Y+omA9UdwOUEaxLrnFNt9Mr4oLwb ckVOhJD+X8HpMiKE2Mz8pCUOOZHRJKzjD7y9FbJvrgqDk4/D634swU82BtuS/Yznq53K 1E6cBnq4ZEv/OUyMJ+yWWsz04k0KK6IjB8E4JE7iz/4hEY/2Xr3oBwaXam7VvB4p+Hov xeCWmlVi/+xim+qykHOzeTh1hcT07NmPOGhFpmQIncPZIU2HCLKv4rIlp8MWRScC7WKE FSLceXgORpf9dN9GtN0eQkBBpe9Wr8LnhF8BtyN+56kV4r1oydbv+JFBJjnCjzuG7IDF fpgA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVrFAIMrWmSFNB/1l/bhdXR9zYNyq+O4DmcUdGinpxQoF7OaZyN H+qcc9Bfe3ckhLjR5tDe8fWRfI1G0LdmOcywVm0PAA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxA2lh828czlvuZPQdxIx7kNWsEpY+ypB2dh7X6EOhNjKtEfH9QPpZoHBGJBDpSBiIPG/aROKCkNDrVlt1zVZY= X-Received: by 2002:a62:b2d9:: with SMTP id z86mr48161518pfl.255.1552548004863; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 00:20:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190314061716.19892-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20190314071245.GA2001@jagdpanzerIV> In-Reply-To: <20190314071245.GA2001@jagdpanzerIV> From: Steve French Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 02:19:53 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cifs: remove unused status severity defines To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Steve French , CIFS , samba-technical , LKML , Sergey Senozhatsky Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-cifs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org All of those uses of __constant_cpu_to_le32 apparently (at least according to checkpatch) should be changed (someday) to cpu_to_le32 but I didn't research why the change from __constant_cpu_to_le32 ---> cpu_to_le32 If it has benefit - and checkpatch is right (it warned about __constant_cpu_to_le32 being no longer preferred) ... perhaps would be worth a followup patch to clean the rest of them up? If you have any context on why kernel code has moved away from using the older format of __constant_cpu_to_.... would be useful to know if any benefit to the change On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:12 AM Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (03/14/19 02:04), Steve French wrote: > [..] > > #define STATUS_SEVERITY_SUCCESS __constant_cpu_to_le32(0x0000) > > Does STATUS_SEVERITY_SUCCESS still use __constant_cpu_to_le32? > > > -#define STATUS_SEVERITY_INFORMATIONAL __constanst_cpu_to_le32(0x0001) > > -#define STATUS_SEVERITY_WARNING __constanst_cpu_to_le32(0x0002) > > -#define STATUS_SEVERITY_ERROR __constanst_cpu_to_le32(0x0003) > > +#define STATUS_SEVERITY_INFORMATIONAL cpu_to_le32(0x0001) > > +#define STATUS_SEVERITY_WARNING cpu_to_le32(0x0002) > > +#define STATUS_SEVERITY_ERROR cpu_to_le32(0x0003) > > Otherwise looks good. > > -ss -- Thanks, Steve