On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 06:42:20PM +0200, Gal Pressman wrote: > On 22-Dec-18 01:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 09:12:43PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > >> Care to submit a coding_style.rst patch or > >> improve the one below this? > > > > I took yours and revised it a little bit. I spent some time looking at > > assembly and decided to drop the performance note, the number of cases > > that run into overhead seems pretty small and probably already > > requires !! to be correct. There is also an equally unlikely gain, ie > > 'if (a & b)' optimizes a tiny bit better for bool types. > > > > I also added a small intro on bool, as I know some people are > > unfamiliar with C11 _Bool and might think bool is just '#define bool > > u8' > > > > (for those added to the cc) I'm looking at cases, like the patch that > > spawned this, where the struct has a single bool and no performance > > considerations. As CH said, seeing that get converted to int due to > > checkpatch is worse than having used bool. Using u8 won't make this > > struct smaller or faster. > > > > Since a "Using bool" section is added, perhaps it's worth documenting the bool > usage as a function parameter [1]? > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg72336.html I'm not really sure how to express that as something concrete.. That specific case clearly called out for a flags as it was a widely used API - maybe less spread out cases like static functions or something are OK?? Jason
