> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, "Winkler, Tomas" <tomas.winkler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, "C, Ramalingam" <ramalingam.c@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On 12/19/2018 8:05 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 09:31:12AM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
> >> >>> struct intel_hdcp {
> >> >>> @@ -414,6 +430,24 @@ struct intel_hdcp {
> >> >>> */
> >> >>> u8 content_type;
> >> >>> struct hdcp_port_data port_data;
> >> >>> +
> >> >>> + u8 is_paired;
> >> >>> + u8 is_repeater;
> >> >> Make these two bool, will simplify the code a bunch.
> >> >
> >> > Seems there is a movement for not to use the bool in structures.
> >>
> >> No. Please use bools in structs when it makes sense. Avoid bools in
> >> structs when you need to care about memory footprint or alignment or
> >> packing or the like. This is not one of those cases.
> >>
> >> > Thats why I have changed these from bool to u8 from v8 onwards.
> >> > Checkpatch also complains on this
> >>
> >> Sorry to say, checkpatch is not the authority although we do send out
> >> automated checkpatch results.
> >
> > I believe it was Linus' call to not use bool in structs at all
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384
>
> I don't care. That's a valid judgement in the context referenced, but the
> conclusion "no bools in structs at all" isn't. In this case, I think bools are the
> better option, and anything else makes the code worse.
The solution was to use bit fields,
unsinged int is_paired:1;
unsinged int is_repeter:1
There is a strong point in consistency so there are no mistakes.
But frankly I don't really have strong feelings about it.
Thanks
Tomas
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
