On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:25:05 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 09:49 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-12-20 at 18:44 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 10:43:18AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > - chunk->coherent is an int not a bool since checkpatch complains about > > > > > using bool in structs; see https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384. > > > > > > > > :( bool is much more readable and there is no performance concern in > > > > this struct. I think checkpatch is overzealous here. > > > > > > Yes. Nevermind that this for bool vs bitfield. A int is worse in > > > every respect in the criteria used in that mail. > > > > (+Joe Perches) > > > > Hi Joe, > > Hi all. > > > This is the second time that I see that the checkpatch complaint about using > > bool in a structure leads kernel contributors to a bad decision. Please consider > > removing that warning from checkpatch. > > I agree it's not a very good message nor is bool use > of structure members a real problem except in very > few cases. > > I think the message could either be restated and bool > members described as OK for unshared memory structures. > > Right now this is the test: > > # check for bool use in .h files > if ($realfile =~ /\.h$/ && > $sline =~ /^.\s+bool\s*$Ident\s*(?::\s*d+\s*)?;/) { > CHK("BOOL_MEMBER", > "Avoid using bool structure members because of possible alignment issues - see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384\n"; . $herecurr); Probably better if this is in the tree. Documentation/process/coding-style.rst, perhaps.
