On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 02:10:49PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > Roman Kagan <rkagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 04:47:29PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > I personally tend to prefer masks over bitfields, so I'd rather do the > > consolidation in the opposite direction: use the definitions in > > hyperv-tlfs.h and replace those unions/bitfields elsewhere. (I vaguely > > remember posting such a patchset a couple of years ago but I lacked the > > motivation to complete it). > > Are there any known advantages of using masks over bitfields or the > resulting binary code is the same? Strictly speaking bitwise ops are portable while bitfields are not, but I guess this is not much of an issue with gcc which is dependable to produce the right thing. I came to dislike the bitfields for the false feeling of atomicity of assignment while most of the time they are read-modify-write operations. And no, I don't feel strong about it, so if nobody backs me on this I give up :) Roman.
