From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
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,
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: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 15:31:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181111143159.GD5215@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1541548114.196084.195.camel@acm.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 912 bytes --]
Hi!
> > 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.
Should we introduce typedef bit boolean "bbool" and set it
appropriately, so that architecture sets it "right" and people just
use it?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-11 14:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ 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 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 1/9] workqueue: Provide queue_work_node to queue work near a given NUMA node Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 0:42 ` Bart Van Assche
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
2018-11-07 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 ` [driver-core PATCH v5 4/9] driver core: Move async_synchronize_full call Alexander Duyck
2018-11-06 1:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 16:18 ` Alexander Duyck
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
2018-11-06 4:10 ` kbuild test robot
2018-11-06 23:51 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 0:52 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-23 1:23 ` Rong Chen
2018-11-23 14:19 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-06 23:48 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-07 1:34 ` Joe Perches
2018-11-08 23:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-11 14:31 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2018-11-27 2:35 ` Dan Williams
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
2018-11-07 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
2018-11-07 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
2018-11-07 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
2018-11-07 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 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=20181111143159.GD5215@amd \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--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=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 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).