From: Joe Perches <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Dan Murphy <email@example.com>, Wolfgang Grandegger <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] can: m_can: Create a m_can platform framework Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 18:48:58 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 13:12 -0600, Dan Murphy wrote: > On 3/4/19 12:13 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > > Am 04.03.19 um 18:22 schrieb Dan Murphy: > > > > > + int pm_clock_support; > > > > > > > > A "bool" would be more appropriate, I think. > > > > > > I was abiding by this checkpatch warning I got on the is_peripherial. > > > > > > CHECK: Avoid using bool structure members because of possible alignment issues - see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384 > > > #94: FILE: drivers/net/can/m_can/m_can.h:94: > > > + bool is_peripherial; > > > > > > > Ah, right! I was also surprised to get that warning. The kernel is full > > of bool's, but well, we should make "checkpatch" happy (and Linus). That check has been removed from checkpatch by commit 7967656ffbfa493f5546c0f18bf8a28f702c4baa Author: Jason Gunthorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Fri Jan 18 15:50:47 2019 -0700 coding-style: Clarify the expectations around bool There has been some confusion since checkpatch started warning about bool use in structures, and people have been avoiding using it. Many people feel there is still a legitimate place for bool in structures, so provide some guidance on bool usage derived from the entire thread that spawned the checkpatch warning. Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA+55aFwVZk1OfB9T2v014PTAKFhtVan_Zj2dOjnCy3x6E4UJfA@mail.gmail.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-05 2:49 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-03-01 18:50 Dan Murphy 2019-03-01 18:50 ` [PATCH v6 2/4] can: m_can: Rename m_can_priv to m_can_classdev Dan Murphy 2019-03-04 17:31 ` Wolfgang Grandegger 2019-03-04 18:14 ` Dan Murphy 2019-03-04 18:26 ` Wolfgang Grandegger 2019-03-01 18:50 ` [PATCH v6 3/4] dt-bindings: can: tcan4x5x: Add DT bindings for TCAN4x5X driver Dan Murphy 2019-03-01 18:50 ` [PATCH v6 4/4] can: tcan4x5x: Add tcan4x5x driver to the kernel Dan Murphy 2019-03-04 18:29 ` Wolfgang Grandegger 2019-03-04 19:07 ` Dan Murphy 2019-03-04 19:33 ` Wolfgang Grandegger 2019-03-04 16:56 ` [PATCH v6 1/4] can: m_can: Create a m_can platform framework Wolfgang Grandegger 2019-03-04 17:22 ` Dan Murphy 2019-03-04 18:13 ` Wolfgang Grandegger 2019-03-04 19:12 ` Dan Murphy 2019-03-05 2:48 ` Joe Perches [this message] 2019-03-04 19:43 ` Dan Murphy
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 \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] can: m_can: Create a m_can platform framework' \ /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
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).