From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-f193.google.com (mail-pg1-f193.google.com [209.85.215.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24F5E21A07A80 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:42:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-f193.google.com with SMTP id z17-v6so25424pgv.3 for ; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:42:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1541720539.196084.236.camel@acm.org> Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v5 5/9] driver core: Establish clear order of operations for deferred probe and remove From: Bart Van Assche Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 15:42:19 -0800 In-Reply-To: <499e4358e72fca510fa6fcfb76ea3ac3792db08f.camel@perches.com> References: <154145223352.29224.8912797012647157172.stgit@ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com> <154145232484.29224.1635232599636954462.stgit@ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com> <1541548114.196084.195.camel@acm.org> <499e4358e72fca510fa6fcfb76ea3ac3792db08f.camel@perches.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Joe Perches , Alexander Duyck , 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 List-ID: On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 17:34 -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > 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? It would be great if a heuristic could be developed that recognizes structs for which the data layout must be architecture independent. If such a heuristic could be developed it could be used to only display warn about "bool X:n" for such structures. Bart. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm