On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 13:12 -0600, Dan Murphy wrote: > On 3/4/19 12:13 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > > Am 04.03.19 um 18:22 schrieb Dan Murphy: > > > > > + int pm_clock_support; > > > > > > > > A "bool" would be more appropriate, I think. > > > > > > I was abiding by this checkpatch warning I got on the is_peripherial. > > > > > > CHECK: Avoid using bool structure members because of possible alignment issues - see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384 > > > #94: FILE: drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.h:94: > > > + bool is_peripherial; > > > > > > > Ah, right! I was also surprised to get that warning. The kernel is full > > of bool's, but well, we should make "checkpatch" happy (and Linus). That check has been removed from checkpatch by commit 7967656ffbfa493f5546c0f18bf8a28f702c4baa Author: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> Date: Fri Jan 18 15:50:47 2019 -0700 coding-style: Clarify the expectations around bool There has been some confusion since checkpatch started warning about bool use in structures, and people have been avoiding using it. Many people feel there is still a legitimate place for bool in structures, so provide some guidance on bool usage derived from the entire thread that spawned the checkpatch warning. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA+55aFwVZk1OfB9T2v014PTAKFhtVan_Zj2dOjnCy3x6E4UJfA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
