Re: [PATCH V1 1/3] IB/core: Align coding style of ib_device_cap_flags structure

[Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1712 bytes --]

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 => we will have style mix of BITs and
>>> shifts in the same file. IMHO it looks awful.
>>> 2. Change the whole file => the work with "git blame" will be less
>>> straightforward.
>>
>> Honestly, the BIT macros are horribly, and anyone who thinks it's useful
>> really should read a book on computer architectured and one on C.
> 
> It would be nice if we were not having to do this for staging then.  Also
> 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.
> 
> Where are the guidelines for when one can ignore checkpatch and when they can
> not?  It would be nice to know when we can "be developers" vs "being robots to
> some tool".
> 
> 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 ;-)

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
              GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 884 bytes --]