On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:39:31PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/06/2011 10:38 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > It doesn't cause any runtime problems in this case, but bitfields should
> > be unsigned. This file gets included a lot so it generates thousands of
> > Sparse warnings about dubious one-bit signed bitfields.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> > index 0ecd1a9..114dca1 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> > @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ struct thread_info {
> > */
> > __u8 supervisor_stack[0];
> > #endif
> > - int sig_on_uaccess_error:1;
> > - int uaccess_err:1; /* uaccess failed */
> > + unsigned int sig_on_uaccess_error:1;
> > + unsigned int uaccess_err:1; /* uaccess failed */
> > };
> >
>
> Can bitfields legally be declared "bool"? If so it's probably the right
> thing, really...
Sure. Bool takes one byte, so it would be:
bool sig_on_uaccess_error:1;
bool uaccess_err:1; /* uaccess failed */
The __u8 types mean that we're trying to not polute the posix
namespace? Does that affect bool? I'm not sure the rules with that.
regards,
dan carpenter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
