On 25-Dec-18 01:12, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > 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 > Sounds reasonable, sometimes adding flags and enum for a single bool function parameter is a bit too much IMO. For a widely used API it makes sense.
