On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 18:19 -0700, Jae Hyun Yoo wrote: > I changed that from a bool because the maintainer of this code, Eddie > doesn't like adding of an additional flag. I'll change it back with > codes in the first submit: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-media/msg148955.html > > Eddie, > Please let me know if you have any objection on that. Ok, so random flags ... ugh. Well, you can approach it either way. Have them all be bitops or all be bool. The tricky thing however is that if they are bitops you need to ensure that they are *all* manipulated under the same lock. If not you have to use the atomic bitops variants. The reason I don't like that is that experience shows that most uses of such atomic variants in drivers usually are failed attempts at papering over broken locking. If everything is covered by a lock, then using the non-atomic versions is more efficient, but so is using bool (optionally with :1 bitfield qualifiers to avoid wasting memory), which from a pure C language perspective I think is more expressive of what you are doing and more readable. Cheers, Ben.
