On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> bool active:1;
>> bool disabled:1;
>>
>
> It won't compile, but unsigned char active:1 will do. ;)
Are you sure? I don't have a buildable kernel tree at the moment, but
the following fragment compiled fine for me (with gcc 4.4.3):
struct foo {
_Bool b1:1;
_Bool b2:1;
};
and was sized at one byte. And "bool" is just a typedef of _Bool in
the kernel headers.
>
> Every thing that reduces code size (without sacrifice readability
> and maintain maintainability) should be worth.
Agreed, within reason. But this patch doesn't reduce code size - it
makes the code fractionally more complicated and reduces the *binary*
size by a few bytes.
>
> This is one of the reasons we accept patches that replacing
> kmalloc+memset with kzalloc, which just saves 8 bytes in my box.
>
Replacing two function calls with one function call is a code
simplification and hence (generally) a good thing - the minuscule
reduction in binary size reduction that comes with it is just noise.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
