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

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

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