[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180410123305.GF4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:33:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: yuankuiz@...eaurora.org, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
aulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
apw@...onical.com, joe@...ches.com
Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for
tick_stopped
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:00:01AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:33 AM, <yuankuiz@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.h
> > @@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ struct tick_sched {
> > unsigned long check_clocks;
> > enum tick_nohz_mode nohz_mode;
> >
> > + bool tick_stopped : 1;
> > unsigned int inidle : 1;
> > - unsigned int tick_stopped : 1;
> > unsigned int idle_active : 1;
> > unsigned int do_timer_last : 1;
> > unsigned int got_idle_tick : 1;
>
> I don't think this is a good idea at all.
>
> Please see https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384 for example.
Joe, apw, could we get Checkpatch to whinge about _Bool in composite
types? That should immediately also disqualify using it as the base type
of bitfields.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists