On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 11:20:39 +0100
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:17:10AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 19.01.2018 11:12, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:47:01PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >> Two minor things
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> +struct kvm_s390_gisa {
> > >>> + u32 next_alert;
> > >>> + u8 ipm;
> > >>> + u8 reserved01;
> > >>> + u8:6;
> > >>
> > >> Mind giving this also a reserved name
> > >
> > > And then all reserved fields have to be renamed as soon as one bit gets
> > > used? Please don't...
> >
> > Only if one keeps the order of the reserved field numbers ...
>
> And that's what people usually do. Therefore having unnamed bitfields is
> nice, since you don't have to care.
>
+1
They make these kinds of definitions so much nicer...
