Use bit_u32() instead of open-coding shifts in the impl_flags! example.
This demonstrates the checked bit helper and ensures that bit positions
remain within the underlying u32 type.

Suggested-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
Link: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1244
Assisted-by: OpenCode:openai/gpt-5.6-sol
Signed-off-by: kosumi <chankocyo@gmail.com>
---
 rust/kernel/impl_flags.rs | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/impl_flags.rs b/rust/kernel/impl_flags.rs
index e2bd7639d..fdf44d5ee 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/impl_flags.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/impl_flags.rs
@@ -19,7 +19,10 @@
 /// # Examples
 ///
 /// ```
-/// use kernel::impl_flags;
+/// use kernel::{
+///     bits::bit_u32,
+///     impl_flags, //
+/// };
 ///
 /// impl_flags!(
 ///     /// Represents multiple permissions.
@@ -30,13 +33,13 @@
 ///     #[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy, PartialEq, Eq)]
 ///     pub enum Permission {
 ///         /// Read permission.
-///         Read = 1 << 0,
+///         Read = bit_u32(0),
 ///
 ///         /// Write permission.
-///         Write = 1 << 1,
+///         Write = bit_u32(1),
 ///
 ///         /// Execute permission.
-///         Execute = 1 << 2,
+///         Execute = bit_u32(2),
 ///     }
 /// );
 ///

base-commit: dc59e4fea9d83f03bad6bddf3fa2e52491777482
-- 
2.54.0

On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 03:15:51AM -0400, kosumi wrote:
> Use bit_u32() instead of open-coding shifts in the impl_flags! example.
> This demonstrates the checked bit helper and ensures that bit positions
> remain within the underlying u32 type.
> 
> Suggested-by: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>
> Link: https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/issues/1244
> Assisted-by: OpenCode:openai/gpt-5.6-sol
> Signed-off-by: kosumi <chankocyo@gmail.com>
> ---
>  rust/kernel/impl_flags.rs | 11 +++++++----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- It looks like you did not use your "real" name for the patch on either
  the Signed-off-by: line, or the From: line (both of which have to
  match).  Please read the kernel file,
  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for how to do this
  correctly.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot