linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] coding-style: Clarify the expectations around bool

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9bc80bb861899633ba93e6c81d36d2201b05936b.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Mon, 07 Jan 2019 16:38:50 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
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, 2019-01-07 at 16:25 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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?

Yes.
---
 scripts/checkpatch.pl | 13 -------------
 1 file changed, 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
index 155fa9305166..cfe0396c9845 100755
--- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
+++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
@@ -6370,19 +6370,6 @@ sub process {
 			}
 		}
 
-# check for bool bitfields
-		if ($sline =~ /^.\s+bool\s*$Ident\s*:\s*\d+\s*;/) {
-			WARN("BOOL_BITFIELD",
-			     "Avoid using bool as bitfield.  Prefer bool bitfields as unsigned int or u<8|16|32>\n" . $herecurr);
-		}
-
-# check for bool use in .h files
-		if ($realfile =~ /\.h$/ &&
-		    $sline =~ /^.\s+bool\s*$Ident\s*(?::\s*d+\s*)?;/) {
-			CHK("BOOL_MEMBER",
-			    "Avoid using bool structure members because of possible alignment issues - see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384\n" . $herecurr);
-		}
-
 # check for semaphores initialized locked
 		if ($line =~ /^.\s*sema_init.+,\W?0\W?\)/) {
 			WARN("CONSIDER_COMPLETION",