On Mon, 2019-01-07 at 14:10 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: +AD4 On Mon, 2019-01-07 at 14:11 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: +AD4 +AD4 There has been some confusion since checkpatch started warning about bool +AD4 +AD4 use in structures, and people have been avoiding using it. +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 Many people feel there is still a legitimate place for bool in structures, +AD4 +AD4 so provide some guidance on bool usage derived from the entire thread that +AD4 +AD4 spawned the checkpatch warning. +AD4 +AD4 Thanks Jason. +AD4 +AD4 It'd be nice to combine this with some better +AD4 checkpatch warning or even a removal of that +AD4 misleading warning from checkpatch altogether. +AD4 +AD4 With a couple minor nits below and and Ack if +AD4 you want one: +AD4 +AD4 Acked-by: Joe Perches +ADw-joe+AEA-perches.com+AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst +AD4 +AD4 +AFsAXQ +AD4 +AD4 +AEAAQA -921,7 +-921,37 +AEAAQA result. Typical examples would be functions that return pointers+ADs they use +AD4 +AD4 NULL or the ERR+AF8-PTR mechanism to report failure. +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 +AD4 -17) Don't re-invent the kernel macros +AD4 +AD4 +-17) Using bool +AD4 +AD4 +--------------- +AD4 +AD4 +- +AD4 +AD4 +-The Linux kernel uses the C99 standard for the bool type. bool values can only +AD4 +AD4 Maybe +AD4 +AD4 The Linux kernel bool type is the C99 +AF8-Bool type. Or maybe +ACI-The Linux kernel bool type is an alias for the C99 +AF8-Bool type.+ACI +AD4 +AD4 +-evaluate to 0 or 1, and implicit or explicit conversion to bool automatically +AD4 +AD4 +-converts the value to true or false. When using bool types the +ACEAIQ construction +AD4 +AD4 +-is not needed, which eliminates a class of bugs. +AD4 +AD4 +- +AD4 +AD4 +-When working with bool values the true and false labels should be used instead +AD4 +AD4 true and false are not labels but +ACM-defines With these refinements, feel free to add: Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche +ADw-bvanassche+AEA-acm.org+AD4
