[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803151351280.1525@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:52:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
cc: x86@...nel.org, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Muli Ben-Yehuda <mulix@...ix.org>,
Jon Mason <jdmason@...zu.us>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use generic swiotlb_ops
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:00:57AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > #if defined(CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU) || defined(CONFIG_AMD_IOMMU)
> > > void *iommu; /* hook for IOMMU specific extension */
> > > #endif
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_STA2X11
> > > + bool is_sta2x11 : 1;
> >
> > Huch? Please use either bool or an unsigned int based bitfield. A boolean
> > bitfield doesn't make sense.
>
> bool bitfields are perfectly valid in C99 and used in various places in
> the kernel. But if you want either bool or an unsigned bitfield let me
> know and I'll switch it over.
Yeah, I know that the standard defines it, but that doesn't mean it makes
sense. At least not to me.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists