[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 15:31:59 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, tj@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, rafael@...nel.org, len.brown@...el.com,
zwisler@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com, dave.jiang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v5 5/9] driver core: Establish clear order of
operations for deferred probe and remove
Hi!
> > One change I made in addition is I replaced the use of "bool X:1" to define
> > the bitfield to a "u8 X:1" setup in order to resolve some checkpatch
> > warnings.
>
> Please use "bool X:1" instead of "u8 X:1". I think it was a bad idea to make
> checkpatch complain about "bool X:1" since "bool X:1" should only be avoided
> in structures for which alignment must be architecture-independent. For struct
> device it is fine if member alignment differs per architecture. Additionally,
> changing "bool X:1" into "u8 X:1" will reduce performance on architectures that
> cannot do byte addressing.
Should we introduce typedef bit boolean "bbool" and set it
appropriately, so that architecture sets it "right" and people just
use it?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists