On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 06:16:19PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 05:03:09PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > I can do that, I slightly prefer BIT_ULL() macro, but I don't have a > > > strong > > > opinion on my side. > > > @Borislav since you suggested it, WDYT? > > > > Either goes for me. Sorry for nitpicking that :-) The first comment > > stil applies. > > Bit 8 is a lot better than 0x100. > > Let's give a better example: > > 0x0000000008000000 > > or > > BIT_ULL(27) > > :-)
Sure, I'm fine with using BIT_ULL() :-) > > While I'm here: I'm guessing I'll route patches 1 and 4 through tip once > they're ready to go and give Jarkko an immutable branch he can base the other > two ontop. > > Agreed? Works for me. > > Thx. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette BR, Jarkko
