Hi Yonghong,
Thank you for the review!
On 10/07/2022 18:59, Yonghong Song wrote:> On 7/10/22 1:35 AM, Matthieu
Baerts wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> index 81b19669efba..2ac424641cc3 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/bpf_verifier.h
>> @@ -345,10 +345,10 @@ struct bpf_verifier_state_list {
>> };
>> struct bpf_loop_inline_state {
>> - int initialized:1; /* set to true upon first entry */
>> - int fit_for_inline:1; /* true if callback function is the same
>> - * at each call and flags are always zero
>> - */
>> + bool initialized; /* set to true upon first entry */
>> + bool fit_for_inline; /* true if callback function is the same
>> + * at each call and flags are always zero
>> + */
>
> I think changing 'int' to 'unsigned' is a better alternative for
> potentially adding more bitfields in the future. This is also a pattern
> for many other kernel data structures.
There was room, I was not sure if it would be OK but I saw 'bool' were
often used in structures from this bpf_verifier.h file.
I can of course switch to an unsigned one. I would have picked 'u8' when
looking at the structures around but any preferences from you?
'unsigned', 'unsigned int', 'u8', 'u32'?
Cheers,
Matt
--
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net
