From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: len.brown@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org,
jiangshanlai@gmail.com, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, pavel@ucw.cz,
zwisler@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v5 5/9] driver core: Establish clear order of operations for deferred probe and remove
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:34:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <499e4358e72fca510fa6fcfb76ea3ac3792db08f.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1541548114.196084.195.camel@acm.org>
On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 15:48 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 13:12 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > One change I made in addition is I replaced the use of "bool X:1" to define
> > the bitfield to a "u8 X:1" setup in order to resolve some checkpatch
> > warnings.
>
> Please use "bool X:1" instead of "u8 X:1". I think it was a bad idea to make
> checkpatch complain about "bool X:1" since "bool X:1" should only be avoided
> in structures for which alignment must be architecture-independent. For struct
> device it is fine if member alignment differs per architecture. Additionally,
> changing "bool X:1" into "u8 X:1" will reduce performance on architectures that
> cannot do byte addressing.
I generally agree. But the checkpatch warning _could_
be useful in those cases where alignment should be
architecture-independent.
Any suggestion on how to improve the message?
s
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, tj@kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
jiangshanlai@gmail.com, rafael@kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com,
pavel@ucw.cz, zwisler@kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
dave.jiang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v5 5/9] driver core: Establish clear order of operations for deferred probe and remove
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:34:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <499e4358e72fca510fa6fcfb76ea3ac3792db08f.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1541548114.196084.195.camel@acm.org>
On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 15:48 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 13:12 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > One change I made in addition is I replaced the use of "bool X:1" to define
> > the bitfield to a "u8 X:1" setup in order to resolve some checkpatch
> > warnings.
>
> Please use "bool X:1" instead of "u8 X:1". I think it was a bad idea to make
> checkpatch complain about "bool X:1" since "bool X:1" should only be avoided
> in structures for which alignment must be architecture-independent. For struct
> device it is fine if member alignment differs per architecture. Additionally,
> changing "bool X:1" into "u8 X:1" will reduce performance on architectures that
> cannot do byte addressing.
I generally agree. But the checkpatch warning _could_
be useful in those cases where alignment should be
architecture-independent.
Any suggestion on how to improve the message?
s
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joe Perches <joe-6d6DIl74uiNBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche-HInyCGIudOg@public.gmane.org>,
Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Cc: len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
rafael-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
jiangshanlai-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
linux-nvdimm-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org,
pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org,
zwisler-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org,
akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v5 5/9] driver core: Establish clear order of operations for deferred probe and remove
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:34:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <499e4358e72fca510fa6fcfb76ea3ac3792db08f.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1541548114.196084.195.camel-HInyCGIudOg@public.gmane.org>
On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 15:48 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 13:12 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > One change I made in addition is I replaced the use of "bool X:1" to define
> > the bitfield to a "u8 X:1" setup in order to resolve some checkpatch
> > warnings.
>
> Please use "bool X:1" instead of "u8 X:1". I think it was a bad idea to make
> checkpatch complain about "bool X:1" since "bool X:1" should only be avoided
> in structures for which alignment must be architecture-independent. For struct
> device it is fine if member alignment differs per architecture. Additionally,
> changing "bool X:1" into "u8 X:1" will reduce performance on architectures that
> cannot do byte addressing.
I generally agree. But the checkpatch warning _could_
be useful in those cases where alignment should be
architecture-independent.
Any suggestion on how to improve the message?
s
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-07 1:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-05 21:11 [driver-core PATCH v5 0/9] Add NUMA aware async_schedule calls Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:11 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:11 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 1/9] workqueue: Provide queue_work_node to queue work near a given NUMA node Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:11 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:11 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 0:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 0:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 0:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 16:27 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 16:27 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 16:27 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:11 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 2/9] async: Add support for queueing on specific " Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:11 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:11 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-07 0:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-05 21:11 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 3/9] device core: Consolidate locking and unlocking of parent and device Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:11 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:11 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:11 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 4/9] driver core: Move async_synchronize_full call Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:11 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 1:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 1:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 1:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 16:18 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 16:18 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 16:18 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 17:22 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 17:22 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 17:22 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-05 21:12 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 5/9] driver core: Establish clear order of operations for deferred probe and remove Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:12 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:12 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 4:10 ` kbuild test robot
2018-11-06 4:10 ` kbuild test robot
2018-11-06 4:10 ` kbuild test robot
2018-11-06 23:51 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 23:51 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 23:51 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:52 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-07 0:52 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-23 1:23 ` Rong Chen
2018-11-23 1:23 ` Rong Chen
2018-11-23 1:23 ` Rong Chen
2018-11-23 14:19 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-23 14:19 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 23:48 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 23:48 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 23:48 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 1:34 ` Joe Perches [this message]
2018-11-07 1:34 ` Joe Perches
2018-11-07 1:34 ` Joe Perches
2018-11-08 23:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-08 23:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-08 23:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-11 14:31 ` Pavel Machek
2018-11-27 2:35 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-27 2:35 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-27 16:49 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-27 16:49 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:12 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 6/9] driver core: Probe devices asynchronously instead of the driver Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:12 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:12 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-07 0:22 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:22 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:22 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-05 21:12 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 7/9] driver core: Attach devices on CPU local to device node Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:12 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:12 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-07 0:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-05 21:12 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 8/9] PM core: Use new async_schedule_dev command Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:12 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:12 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-07 0:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-05 21:12 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 9/9] libnvdimm: Schedule device registration on node local to the device Alexander Duyck
2018-11-05 21:12 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-07 0:26 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:26 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:26 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 0:50 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 0/9] Add NUMA aware async_schedule calls Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 0:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 0:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 16:25 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 16:25 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 16:25 ` Alexander Duyck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=499e4358e72fca510fa6fcfb76ea3ac3792db08f.camel@perches.com \
--to=joe@perches.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=zwisler@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.