[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e7cbe275136b86083ff70d9af26f41bf@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:07:28 +0800
From: yuankuiz@...eaurora.org
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool
member definitions
Hi julia,
On 2018-04-15 05:19 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 08:22 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 09:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > > > We already have some 500 bools-in-structs
>> > >
>> > > I got at least triple that only in include/
>> > > so I expect there are at probably an order
>> > > of magnitude more than 500 in the kernel.
>> > >
>> > > I suppose some cocci script could count the
>> > > actual number of instances. A regex can not.
>> >
>> > I got 12667.
>>
>> Could you please post the cocci script?
>>
>> > I'm not sure to understand the issue. Will using a bitfield help if there
>> > are no other bitfields in the structure?
>>
>> IMO, not really.
>>
>> The primary issue is described by Linus here:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384
>>
>> I personally do not find a significant issue with
>> uncontrolled sizes of bool in kernel structs as
>> all of the kernel structs are transitory and not
>> written out to storage.
>>
>> I suppose bool bitfields are also OK, but for the
>> RMW required.
>>
>> Using unsigned int :1 bitfield instead of bool :1
>> has the negative of truncation so that the uint
>> has to be set with !! instead of a simple assign.
>
> At least with gcc 5.4.0, a number of structures become larger with
> unsigned int :1. bool:1 seems to mostly solve this problem. The
> structure
> ichx_desc, defined in drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c seems to become larger
> with
> both approaches.
[ZJ] Hopefully, this could make it better in your environment.
IMHO, this is just for double check.
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c
index 4f6d643..b46e170 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c
@@ -70,6 +70,18 @@ static const u8 avoton_reglen[3] = {
#define ICHX_READ(reg, base_res) inl((reg) + (base_res)->start)
struct ichx_desc {
+ /* GPO_BLINK is available on this chipset */
+ bool uses_gpe0:1;
+
+ /* Whether the chipset has GPIO in GPE0_STS in the PM IO region
*/
+ bool uses_gpe0:1;
+
+ /*
+ * Some chipsets don't let reading output values on GPIO_LVL
register
+ * this option allows driver caching written output values
+ */
+ bool use_outlvl_cache:1;
+
/* Max GPIO pins the chipset can have */
uint ngpio;
@@ -77,24 +89,12 @@ struct ichx_desc {
const u8 (*regs)[3];
const u8 *reglen;
- /* GPO_BLINK is available on this chipset */
- bool have_blink;
-
- /* Whether the chipset has GPIO in GPE0_STS in the PM IO region
*/
- bool uses_gpe0;
-
/* USE_SEL is bogus on some chipsets, eg 3100 */
u32 use_sel_ignore[3];
/* Some chipsets have quirks, let these use their own
request/get */
int (*request)(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset);
int (*get)(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset);
-
- /*
- * Some chipsets don't let reading output values on GPIO_LVL
register
- * this option allows driver caching written output values
- */
- bool use_outlvl_cache;
};
ZJ
Powered by blists - more mailing lists