On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 16:01 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> 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.
Why do you need to hear from me again?
As far as I know, the only info about typedef avoidance are in
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst section 5.
