From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0003.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 325DE2118A593 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:34:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <499e4358e72fca510fa6fcfb76ea3ac3792db08f.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v5 5/9] driver core: Establish clear order of operations for deferred probe and remove From: Joe Perches Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:34:31 -0800 In-Reply-To: <1541548114.196084.195.camel@acm.org> References: <154145223352.29224.8912797012647157172.stgit@ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com> <154145232484.29224.1635232599636954462.stgit@ahduyck-desk1.jf.intel.com> <1541548114.196084.195.camel@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Bart Van Assche , Alexander Duyck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: len.brown@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, pavel@ucw.cz, zwisler@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 15:48 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 13:12 -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > 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. I generally agree. But the checkpatch warning _could_ be useful in those cases where alignment should be architecture-independent. Any suggestion on how to improve the message? s _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm