| Message ID | 58dc0820.8943620a.67760.546e@mx.google.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 00:46 +0530, Varsha Rao wrote: > Replace bitwise left shift by one operations with BIT() macro. This patch > fixes the checkpatch issue. > > Signed-off-by: Varsha Rao <rvarsha016@gmail.com> > --- > net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c > index 4da4bc1..9f2c869 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c > @@ -71,10 +71,10 @@ > * an issue. The upper bound isn't an issue with existing technologies. > */ > #define BW_SCALE 24 > -#define BW_UNIT (1 << BW_SCALE) > +#define BW_UNIT BIT(BW_SCALE) > > #define BBR_SCALE 8 /* scaling factor for fractions in BBR (e.g. gains) */ > -#define BBR_UNIT (1 << BBR_SCALE) > +#define BBR_UNIT BIT(BBR_SCALE) > > /* BBR has the following modes for deciding how fast to send: */ > enum bbr_mode { Well, no. BIT() is using unsigned long. #define BIT(nr) (1UL << (nr)) This change might have unintended effects. Maybe checkpatch should be fixed.
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c index 4da4bc1..9f2c869 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c @@ -71,10 +71,10 @@ * an issue. The upper bound isn't an issue with existing technologies. */ #define BW_SCALE 24 -#define BW_UNIT (1 << BW_SCALE) +#define BW_UNIT BIT(BW_SCALE) #define BBR_SCALE 8 /* scaling factor for fractions in BBR (e.g. gains) */ -#define BBR_UNIT (1 << BBR_SCALE) +#define BBR_UNIT BIT(BBR_SCALE) /* BBR has the following modes for deciding how fast to send: */ enum bbr_mode {
Replace bitwise left shift by one operations with BIT() macro. This patch fixes the checkpatch issue. Signed-off-by: Varsha Rao <rvarsha016@gmail.com> --- net/ipv4/tcp_bbr.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)