From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
yuankuiz@codeaurora.org, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:51:26 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1c9f185f6086e9d89659f93720a27b660ee17c13.camel@perches.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180411092959.e666ec443e4d3bb6f43901d7@linux-foundation.org>
(Adding Julia Lawall)
On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 09:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> We already have some 500 bools-in-structs
I got at least triple that only in include/
so I expect there are at probably an order
of magnitude more than 500 in the kernel.
I suppose some cocci script could count the
actual number of instances. A regex can not.
> and the owners of that code will
> be wondering whether they should change them, and whether they should
> apply those remove-bool-in-struct patches which someone sent them.
Which is why the warning is --strict only
> So... can we please get some clarity here?
> ...
>
> (ooh, https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384 is working this morning)
>
> hm, Linus suggests that instead of using
>
> bool mybool;
>
> we should use
>
> unsigned mybool:1;
>
> However that introduces the risk that alterations of mybool will use
> nonatomic rmw operations.
>
> unsigned myboolA:1;
> unsigned myboolB:1;
>
> so
>
> foo->myboolA = 1;
>
> could scribble on concurrent alterations of foo->myboolB. I think.
Without barriers, that could happen anyway.
To me, the biggest problem with conversions
from bool to bitfield is logical. ie:
unsigned int.singlebitfield = 4;
is not the same result as
bool = 4;
because of implicit truncation vs boolean conversion
so a direct change of bool use in structs to unsigned
would also require logic analysis.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-11 16:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-10 7:33 Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped yuankuiz
2018-04-10 7:45 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 8:51 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 8:54 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 7:55 ` Subject: [PATCH] " Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10 8:12 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 8:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-04-10 8:15 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 9:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10 10:07 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 11:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10 14:08 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 14:49 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 23:09 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 23:20 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20 1:47 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20 6:44 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20 19:24 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-25 7:01 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 11:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 12:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 12:33 ` Subject: [PATCH] " Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 15:14 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-10 16:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 15:41 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: whinge about bool bitfields Joe Perches
2018-04-10 18:19 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions Joe Perches
2018-04-10 21:39 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-10 21:53 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-10 22:00 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-11 8:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-11 16:29 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-11 16:51 ` Joe Perches [this message]
2018-04-12 6:22 ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-12 6:42 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-12 7:03 ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-12 8:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-14 21:19 ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-17 9:07 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-18 18:38 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-19 4:40 ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-19 4:51 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-19 5:16 ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-19 6:48 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-19 10:42 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20 1:31 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-11 17:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12 7:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-04-12 8:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12 9:35 ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-12 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12 12:01 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-12 12:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12 12:38 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-12 16:47 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-12 11:52 ` Kalle Valo
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=1c9f185f6086e9d89659f93720a27b660ee17c13.camel@perches.com \
--to=joe@perches.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yuankuiz@codeaurora.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).