On Tue, Aug 1, 2023, at 00:43, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31 2023 at 23:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:14:11PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/futex.h
>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/futex.h
>>> @@ -74,7 +74,12 @@
>>> struct futex_waitv {
>>> __u64 val;
>>> __u64 uaddr;
>>> - __u32 flags;
>>> + union {
>>> + __u32 flags;
>>> + __u32 size : 2,
>>> + : 5,
>>> + private : 1;
>>> + };
>>> __u32 __reserved;
>>> };
>>
>> Durr, I'm not sure I remember if that does the right thing across
>> architectures -- might just work. But I'm fairly sure this isn't the
>> only case of a field in a flags thing in our APIs. Although obviously
>> I can't find another case in a hurry :/
>
> I know, but that doesn't make these things more readable and neither an
> argument against doing it for futex2 :)
...
>
> Still that explicit bitfield does neither need comments nor does it
> leave room for interpretation.
It may be clear to the compiler, but without comments or
looking up psABI documentation I certainly wouldn't know
immediately which bits of the flags word overlay the bitfields
for a given combination of __BIG_ENDIAN/__LITTLE_ENDIAN
and __BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD/__LITTLE_ENDIAN_BITFIELD or
architectures with unusual struct alignment requirements
(m68k or arm-oabi).
I'd prefer to completely avoid the bitfield here. Maybe having
exclusive flags for each width would be less confusing, at the
cost of needing two more flag bits and a slightly more complicated
sanity check, or we could take an extra byte out of the __reserved
field to store the length.
Arnd
