On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 17:34 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 15:48 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 13:12 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > One change I made in addition is I replaced the use of "bool X:1" to > > > define > > > the bitfield to a "u8 X:1" setup in order to resolve some checkpatch > > > warnings. > > > > Please use "bool X:1" instead of "u8 X:1". I think it was a bad idea to make > > checkpatch complain about "bool X:1" since "bool X:1" should only be avoided > > in structures for which alignment must be architecture-independent. For > > struct > > device it is fine if member alignment differs per architecture. > > Additionally, > > changing "bool X:1" into "u8 X:1" will reduce performance on architectures > > that > > cannot do byte addressing. > > I generally agree. But the checkpatch warning _could_ > be useful in those cases where alignment should be > architecture-independent. > > Any suggestion on how to improve the message?
It would be great if a heuristic could be developed that recognizes structs for which the data layout must be architecture independent. If such a heuristic could be developed it could be used to only display warn about "bool X:n" for such structures. Bart. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
