On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:46:58AM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> > Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:05:06 +0200 > > > Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 02:46:22PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote: > >>On 17-04-26 07:02 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 06:04:45PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > >>[..] > >> > >>> > So fix iproute2. It is always first kernel, then iproute2. > >>> > >>> Perhaps I am missing the point or somehow misguided but I would expect > >>> that > >>> if the UAPI uses BIT() it also provides BIT(). > >> > >>There is a user of BIT() already in iproute2 (devlink). We can move > >>the code to be more generally available for other iproute2 users. > >>Then this UAPI change makes use of it. > > > > Should be part of UAPI as well > > I see that include/uapi/rdma/vmw_pvrdma-abi.h is using BIT macro. > > I don't see BIT macro defined in UAPI (I thought it is). So either > > define it there (not sure where) or just use "<<" > > "BIT" is a pretty crazy small simple name to pollute into the global > namespace, IMHO.
It sounds to me that it would be best to just use "<<" rather than spending cycles posturing on how to add it to the UAPI. Existing users of BIT in the UAPI could also be updated to use "<<" to avoid having a misleading precedence in-tree.
