On Mon 2023-03-27 18:34:22, John Ogness wrote: > On 2023-03-21, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It is not completely clear that that this struct is stored > > as atomic_long_t atomic_state[2] in struct console. > > > > What about adding? > > > > atomic_long_t atomic; > > The struct is used to simplify interpretting and creating values to be > stored in the atomic state variable. I do not think it makes sense that > the atomic variable type itself is part of it. It was just an idea. Feel free to keep it as is (not to add the atomic into the union). > > Anyway, we should at least add a comment into struct console > > about that atomic_state[2] is used to store and access > > struct cons_state an atomic way. Also add a compilation > > check that the size is the same. > > A compilation check would be nice. Is that possible? I think the following might do the trick: static_assert(sizeof(struct cons_state) == sizeof(atomic_long_t)); > I am renaming the struct to nbcon_state. Also the variable will be > called nbcon_state. With the description updated, I think it makes it > clearer that "struct nbcon_state" is used to interpret/create values of > console->nbcon_state. Sounds good. Best Regards, Petr
