On 1 October 2018 at 03:43, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:35 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Oh, and another thing (and I'm surprised checkpatch.pl didn't complain >> >>>>>>> about it): the use of typedef in new code is strongly discouraged. >> >>>>>>> This policy predates my involvement, so perhaps Joe can elaborate on >> >>>>>>> the rationale? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> In case it matters, the motivation for making this a typedef is I >> >>>>>> could imagine this at some point turning into a more complicated >> >>>>>> struct on certain platforms and that would make refactoring easier. I >> >>>>>> could just make it `struct simd_context` now with 1 member though... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Yes that makes sense >> >>>> >> >>>> The rationale for it being a typedef or moving to a struct now? >> >>> >> >>> Yes just switch to a struct. >> >> >> >> Okay. No problem with that, but will wait to hear from Joe first. >> > >> > Why do you need to hear from me again? >> > >> > As far as I know, the only info about typedef avoidance are in >> > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst section 5. >> > >> > >> >> I personally prefer it with the typedef. If this were my code, I’d say the coding style is silly for opaque tiny structs like this. > > I'll stick with a typedef. Reading the style guide, this clearly falls > into 5.a, 5.b, and maybe 5.c. For 5.a, at some point this will > possibly contain architecture specific blobs. For 5.b, it is just an > enum (integer) right now. I can live with that, but other may still object. In any case, since you are using the enum member as a bitfield, it would be better to typedef it to int instead, and retain the enum definition only for the symbolic constants.
