On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:00 PM Ard Biesheuvel
<ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
Okay. No problem with that, but will wait to hear from Joe first.
