[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190114172044.GE22875@mellanox.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 17:20:49 +0000
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To: Joey Pabalinas <joeypabalinas@...il.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Gal Pressman <galpress@...zon.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
"xavier.huwei@...wei.com" <xavier.huwei@...wei.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...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>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] coding-style: Clarify the expectations around bool
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 07:29:40AM -1000, Joey Pabalinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48:13PM +0000, 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.
>
> Hey Jason,
>
> I very much agree that the bool expectations could be much clearer, and this
> patch is a nice step in that direction! Just a couple small nitpicks:
>
> > +Do not use bool if cache line layout or size of the value matters, its size
> > +and alignment varies based on the compiled architecture. Structures that are
> > +optimized for alignment and size should not use bool.
>
> +Do not use bool if cache line layout or size of the value matters, as its size
> ^
> |
> Adding an "as" makes the sentence flow a bit cleaner: --------------
>
> > +into a single bitwise 'flags' argument and 'flags' can often a more readable
> > +alternative if the call-sites have naked true/false constants.
>
> +into a single bitwise 'flags' argument and 'flags' can often be a more readable
> ^
> |
> Missing a "be" here: -----------------------------------------
>
> Ack from me after those two corrections.
>
> Reviewed-by: Joey Pabalinas <joeypabalinas@...il.com>
done, thanks
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists