# Re: \[PATCH 0/6\] Don't use BIT() macro in UAPI headers

- From: Joseph Richey \<hidden\>
- Date: 2021-05-20 12:36:36 
- List: linux-arm-kernel
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-arm-kernel/2021/05/1385964
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/kvm/2021/05/1385907/t.md

```text
> > Currently, the script actually _encourages_ users to use the BIT macro
> > even if adding things to UAPI.
>
> How so?

Running checkpatch.pl with --strict gives:

CHECK: Prefer using the BIT macro
#26: FILE: arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hwcap2.h:9:
+#define HWCAP2_FSGSBASE                        (1 << 1)

It should probably just recommend the _BITUL macro.

> Also, in your commit messages you refer to patches with patchwork links
> - please use the respective upstream commit IDs instead. Grep for
> "Fixes:" here:

Ahhhhh, I figured there was a more standard way. Will fix.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
```