On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 08:33:45PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 2019/10/1 16:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 03:22:57PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> > > + union {
> > > + u8 event_count :7; /* the total number of created perf_events */
> > > + bool enable_cleanup :1;
> >
> > That's atrocious, don't ever create a bitfield with base _Bool.
>
> I saw this kind of usages in the tree such as "struct
> arm_smmu_master/tipc_mon_state/regmap_irq_chip".
Because other people do tasteless things doesn't make it right.
> I'm not sure is this your personal preference or is there a technical
> reason such as this usage is not incompatible with union syntax?
Apparently it 'works', so there is no hard technical reason, but
consider that _Bool is specified as an integer type large enough to
store the values 0 and 1, then consider it as a base type for a
bitfield. That's just disguisting.
Now, I suppose it 'works', but there is no actual benefit over just
using a single bit of any other base type.
> My design point is to save a little bit space without introducing
> two variables such as "int event_count & bool enable_cleanup".
Your design is questionable, the structure is _huge_, and your union has
event_count:0 and enable_cleanup:0 as the same bit, which I don't think
was intentional.
Did you perhaps want to write:
struct {
u8 event_count : 7;
u8 event_cleanup : 1;
};
which has a total size of 1 byte and uses the low 7 bits as count and the
msb as cleanup.
Also, the structure has plenty holes to stick proper variables in
without further growing it.
> By the way, is the lazy release mechanism looks reasonable to you?
I've no idea how it works.. I don't know much about virt.
