lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4] coding-style: Clarify the expectations around bool
Date
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@gmail.com>

done, thanks

Jason

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-14 18:21    [W:0.072 / U:6.016 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site