Paul Menage wrote: > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> bool active; >> bool disabled; >> ... >> >> ? >> >> With alignment 5-8 bool values == 8 bytes in 64-bit machine, compared to >> 4 bytes with the approach this patch takes. > > I meant specifying it as: > > bool active:1; > bool disabled:1; > It won't compile, but unsigned char active:1 will do. ;) > i.e. keeping the bit-sized flags but also keeping the bool semantics. > Having said that, I'm not really sure why saving 12 bytes per > subsystem is worth a patch. Every thing that reduces code size (without sacrifice readability and maintain maintainability) should be worth. This is one of the reasons we accept patches that replacing kmalloc+memset with kzalloc, which just saves 8 bytes in my box. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
