[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190107232513.GA5336@ziepe.ca>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 16:25:13 -0700
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Gal Pressman <galpress@...zon.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>, xavier.huwei@...wei.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] coding-style: Clarify the expectations around bool
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 02:10:22PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-01-07 at 14:11 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > There has been some confusion since checkpatch started warning about bool
> > use in structures, and people have been avoiding using it.
> >
> > Many people feel there is still a legitimate place for bool in structures,
> > so provide some guidance on bool usage derived from the entire thread that
> > spawned the checkpatch warning.
>
> Thanks Jason.
>
> It'd be nice to combine this with some better checkpatch warning or
> even a removal of that misleading warning from checkpatch
> altogether.
Okay, do you have a preference?
> With a couple minor nits below and and Ack if
> you want one:
>
> Acked-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Thanks, I made the revisions with Bart's extra words. I'll send a v4
in a few days.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists