RE: [PATCH] doc: drop recommendation against bool in structures

["Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>]

> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, 20 July 2026 14.58
> 
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 02:51:09PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, 20 July 2026 14.13
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 01:46:02PM +0200, Maxime Leroy wrote:
> > > > The coding style advised against bool in structures, citing space
> and
> > > > type-size concerns inherited from the Linux kernel. That does not
> > > match
> > > > DPDK practice: bool is already used in over 1400 structure fields
> > > across
> > > > the tree, including core APIs such as rte_flow. Drop the note so
> the
> > > > style guide reflects actual usage.
> >
> > The note is still valid, although massively violated.
> > Could we paraphrase the note as an advice/recommendation, instead of
> completely removing it?
> > The intention is to make developers consider alternatives when adding
> a Boolean field to a structure.
> > Maybe it could be expanded with a few example alternatives:
> > uint8_t value, or
> > uintN_t value:1 (bitfield).
> >
> I don't think we want those alternative approaches. If something is a
> boolean value, then let's just store it as a bool and be done with it.
> If
> we store it as an int type then we need comments documenting that it's
> actually a flag. If it's a bit type, then the field becomes just that
> little bit more awkward to manage - though still a good choice if the
> struct is size-sensitive.
> 
> Because of this, I'd be in favour of just removing the text and then
> letting the developer choose the best field type for the job. If bool
> is a
> bad choice for a given situation, that should be caught in review.
> 
> /Bruce

OK, I'll buy that.

Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>