On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 14:33 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:00:01AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:33 AM, <yuank...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> > > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.h
> > > @@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ struct tick_sched {
> > > unsigned long check_clocks;
> > > enum tick_nohz_mode nohz_mode;
> > >
> > > + bool tick_stopped : 1;
> > > unsigned int inidle : 1;
> > > - unsigned int tick_stopped : 1;
> > > unsigned int idle_active : 1;
> > > unsigned int do_timer_last : 1;
> > > unsigned int got_idle_tick : 1;
> >
> > I don't think this is a good idea at all.
> >
> > Please see https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384 for example.
>
> Joe, apw, could we get Checkpatch to whinge about _Bool in composite
> types? That should immediately also disqualify using it as the base type
> of bitfields.
Whinging about bool <foo> : <x> seems entirely sensible
and straightforward to do.
I'm not so sure about bool in structs as a patch context
could be adding a bool to local stack definitions and
there's no real ability to determine if the bool is in a
struct or on the stack.
Also, I think there's nothing really wrong with using
bool in structs. Steven Rostedt's rationale in
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/207 isn't really right
as sizeof(int) is 4 not 1 and sizeof(bool) is 1 on arches
without alignment issues. I believe when using gcc,
sizeof(bool) is always 1 and there may be alignment padding
added on some arches. Dunno.
But I think the battle is already lost anyway.
git grep -P '(?<!static|extern)\s+bool\s+\w+\s*;' include | wc -l
1543
