On 11/2/18 4:19 PM, Chas Williams wrote:
On 11/02/2018 10:33 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 11/1/2018 2:45 PM, Luca Boccassi wrote:
On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 19:05 -0400, Charles (Chas) Williams wrote:
.dev_uninit calls .dev_stop and .dev_close. The work that is done in
those routines doesn't need repeated. Use started and opened to
track
the adapter's status.
Signed-off-by: Chas Williams <ciwil...@brocade.com>
<...>
@@ -253,7 +254,7 @@ struct virtio_hw {
uint64_t req_guest_features;
uint64_t guest_features;
uint32_t max_queue_pairs;
- uint16_t started;
+ bool started;
uint16_t max_mtu;
uint16_t vtnet_hdr_size;
uint8_t vlan_strip;
@@ -268,6 +269,7 @@ struct virtio_hw {
struct virtio_pci_common_cfg *common_cfg;
struct virtio_net_config *dev_cfg;
void *virtio_user_dev;
+ bool opened;
This is already merged into next-net-virtio, but I would like to
hightlight the
checkpatch warning about `bool` usage in struct [1].
Briefly it suggests preferring primitive data types against `bool` in
structures
because its size is not clear.
What do you think about it, do you have strong opinion to have them as
bool?
Yes, I suppose I do. bool is the "proper" representation for yes/no.
The arguments cited aren't convincing.
The size of bool is the size of bool. The compiler gets to make that
decision. I don't get to decide the size of int either. The size and
alignemnt of bool should be optimal because your compiler probably knows
more about the target than you do. If your compiler can't figure out
alignment in a structure, please fix the compiler.
bool is a primitive data type per the C99 standard.
I would like to keep it as bool too.
[1]
CHECK:BOOL_MEMBER: Avoid using bool structure members because of possible
alignment issues - see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384
#85: FILE: drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.h:234:
+ bool started;
CHECK:BOOL_MEMBER: Avoid using bool structure members because of possible
alignment issues - see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384
#93: FILE: drivers/net/virtio/virtio_pci.h:260:
+ bool opened;
BTW, I don't get this warning when running checkpatch, what kenrel
version is it coming from?
Thanks,
Maxime
