Re: [PATCH] PCI: brcmstb: Declare a bitmap as a bitmap, not as a plain 'unsigned long'

From: "Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	nsaenz@kernel.org, jim2101024@gmail.com,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com,
	robh@kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com,
	linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: brcmstb: Declare a bitmap as a bitmap, not as a plain 'unsigned long'
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 00:30:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YYmzDSjLgmx9bQQs@rocinante> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4997ef3c-5867-7ce0-73a2-f4381cf0879b@wanadoo.fr>

Hello,

[...]
> > > Jim, Florian and Lorenzo - is this something that would be OK with you,
> > > or you would rather keep things as they were?
> > 
> > I would be tempted to leave the code as-is, but if we do we are probably
> > bound to seeing patches like Christophe's in the future to address the
> 
> Even if I don't find this report in the Coverity database, it should from
> around April 2018.
> So, if you have not already received several patches for that, I doubt that
> you will receive many in the future.
> 
> 
> My own feeling is that using a long (and not a long *) as a bitmap, and
> accessing it with &long may look spurious to a reader.
> That said, it works.
> 
> So, I let you decide if the patch is of any use. Should I need to tweak or
> resend it, let me know.

I would be pro taking it, not only to addresses the Coverity complaint, but
also to align the code with other drivers a little bit more.  Only if
the driver maintainers have no objection, that is.

	Krzysztof