[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190108032135.GD5336@ziepe.ca>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 20:21:35 -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 04:38:50PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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.
Great, done, thanks
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists