On 28 September 2018 at 15:59, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:58 PM Ard Biesheuvel
> <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 28 September 2018 at 15:47, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM Ard Biesheuvel
>> > <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> +typedef enum {
>> >> >> + HAVE_NO_SIMD = 1 << 0,
>> >> >> + HAVE_FULL_SIMD = 1 << 1,
>> >> >> + HAVE_SIMD_IN_USE = 1 << 31
>> >> >> +} simd_context_t;
>> >> >> +
>> >>
>> >> 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.
