From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH for-next 4/4] RDMA/vmw_pvrdma: Remove usage of BIT() from UAPI header Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 09:34:33 -0700 Message-ID: <20171221163433.GD20015@ziepe.ca> References: <20171220192305.GA28403@bryantan-devbox.prom.eng.vmware.com.prom.eng.vmware.com> <20171220192721.GA32622@bryantan-devbox.prom.eng.vmware.com.prom.eng.vmware.com> <20171221130034.GH2942@mtr-leonro.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171221130034.GH2942-U/DQcQFIOTAAJjI8aNfphQ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-rdma-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Bryan Tan , linux-rdma-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 03:00:34PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:27:28AM -0800, Bryan Tan wrote: > > BIT() should not be used in the UAPI header. Remove it. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bryan Tan > > include/uapi/rdma/vmw_pvrdma-abi.h | 12 ++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > IMHO, it should go to -rc. > Doug, Jason? I can't decide if any of the -abi.h changes should be for-rc material or not.. The BIT() issue is being worked around in userspace today, so this seems even less for-rc'y? I'm leaning toward 'not' as we can and do cherry pick a for-next uapi header into rdma-core, so there isn't really an actual reason to put changes to those headers into for-rc? Thoughts? Jason -- 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