Yeah. I'm aboslutely fine with whatever you do. Some of the questions
you're asking occurred to me too but I don't have the answers.
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < builder->num_valid; i++) {
> > > > > + struct v4l2_h264_reference *ref;
> > > > > + u8 dpb_valid;
> > > > > + u8 bottom;
> > > >
> > > > These would be better as type bool.
> > >
> > > I never used a bool for bit operations before, but I guess that can work, thanks
> > > for the suggestion. As this deviates from the original code, I suppose I should
> > > make this a separate patch ?
> >
> > I just saw the name and wondered why it was a u8. bool does make more
> > sense and works fine for the bitwise stuff. But I don't really care at
> > all.
>
> I'll do that in v2, in same patch, looks minor enough. I think if using bool
> could guaranty that only 1 or 0 is possible, it would be even better, but don't
> think C works like this.
I'm not sure I understand. If you assign "bool x = <any non-zero>;"
then x is set to true. Do you want a static checker warning for if
<any non-zero> can be something other than one or zero? The problem is
that people sometimes deliberately do stuff like "bool x = var & 0xf0;".
Smatch will complain if you assign a negative value to x.
test.c:8 test() warn: assigning (-3) to unsigned variable 'x'
It's supposed to print a warning if you used it to save error codes like:
x = some_kernel_function();
But it does not. :/ Something to investigate.
regards,
dan carpenter
