Re: [driver-core PATCH v5 5/9] driver core: Establish clear order of operations for deferred probe and remove

[Bart Van Assche <bvanassche-HInyCGIudOg@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, 2018-11-06 at 17:34 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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?

It would be great if a heuristic could be developed that recognizes structs
for which the data layout must be architecture independent. If such a
heuristic could be developed it could be used to only display warn about
"bool X:n" for such structures.

Bart.