From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v5 5/9] driver core: Establish clear order of operations for deferred probe and remove Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 17:34:31 -0800 Message-ID: <499e4358e72fca510fa6fcfb76ea3ac3792db08f.camel@perches.com> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1541548114.196084.195.camel-HInyCGIudOg@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: Bart Van Assche , Alexander Duyck , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org Cc: len.brown-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, rafael-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, jiangshanlai-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, linux-nvdimm-hn68Rpc1hR1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org, pavel-+ZI9xUNit7I@public.gmane.org, zwisler-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org 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