Re: [patch -next] x86: dubious one-bit signed bitfields

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 12/06/2011 10:38 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> It doesn't cause any runtime problems in this case, but bitfields should
> be unsigned.  This file gets included a lot so it generates thousands of
> Sparse warnings about dubious one-bit signed bitfields.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> index 0ecd1a9..114dca1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h
> @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@ struct thread_info {
>  						*/
>  	__u8			supervisor_stack[0];
>  #endif
> -	int			sig_on_uaccess_error:1;
> -	int			uaccess_err:1;	/* uaccess failed */
> +	unsigned int		sig_on_uaccess_error:1;
> +	unsigned int		uaccess_err:1;	/* uaccess failed */
>  };
>  

Can bitfields legally be declared "bool"?  If so it's probably the right
thing, really...

	-hpa
-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.