[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-backports
Subject:    Re: [RFC] backports: always use new version compare macros
From:       Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel () broadcom ! com>
Date:       2017-02-12 19:29:46
Message-ID: 87146aa0-81b9-d5e9-0700-701fb36c6d61 () broadcom ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 12-2-2017 20:11, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-02-11 at 22:45 +0100, Arend Van Spriel wrote:
>>
>> On 7-2-2017 23:08, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>> It's some churn, but I think worthwhile - any objections?
>>
>> I find comparison operators more clear, but it is probably just a
>> matter of getting used to it. What makes it worthwile? As you already
>> did the churn I do not have any objections. Just curious.
> 
> So to be honest, I actually pushed the change more or less by accident,
> I'm happy to back it out again.

I suspect the churn was not in pushing the change :-p I am fine with it.
> My reasoning was something along these lines: First, I find it awkward
> to always type the long form when we always have the same patterns.
> Especially with the IN_RANGE() part, which I haven't even fully
> converted I think. So that's my immediate motivation for adding it, but
> as the de-facto maintainer now I'd also want people to really be able
> to figure out which pattern they should use, regardless of whether
> they're looking at old or new bits, so unifying it (towards the new one
> because I'm a lazy bastard) seemed like a good idea.

Agree that a mix of old and new macros is not what we want. I am lazy
too so thanks.

Regards,
Arend
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe backports" in
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]