From: yuankuiz@codeaurora.org
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Cc: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 17:07:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e7cbe275136b86083ff70d9af26f41bf@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1804142315300.2750@hadrien>
Hi julia,
On 2018-04-15 05:19 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 08:22 +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Joe Perches wrote:
>> > > On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 09:29 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > > > We already have some 500 bools-in-structs
>> > >
>> > > I got at least triple that only in include/
>> > > so I expect there are at probably an order
>> > > of magnitude more than 500 in the kernel.
>> > >
>> > > I suppose some cocci script could count the
>> > > actual number of instances. A regex can not.
>> >
>> > I got 12667.
>>
>> Could you please post the cocci script?
>>
>> > I'm not sure to understand the issue. Will using a bitfield help if there
>> > are no other bitfields in the structure?
>>
>> IMO, not really.
>>
>> The primary issue is described by Linus here:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384
>>
>> I personally do not find a significant issue with
>> uncontrolled sizes of bool in kernel structs as
>> all of the kernel structs are transitory and not
>> written out to storage.
>>
>> I suppose bool bitfields are also OK, but for the
>> RMW required.
>>
>> Using unsigned int :1 bitfield instead of bool :1
>> has the negative of truncation so that the uint
>> has to be set with !! instead of a simple assign.
>
> At least with gcc 5.4.0, a number of structures become larger with
> unsigned int :1. bool:1 seems to mostly solve this problem. The
> structure
> ichx_desc, defined in drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c seems to become larger
> with
> both approaches.
[ZJ] Hopefully, this could make it better in your environment.
IMHO, this is just for double check.
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c
index 4f6d643..b46e170 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-ich.c
@@ -70,6 +70,18 @@ static const u8 avoton_reglen[3] = {
#define ICHX_READ(reg, base_res) inl((reg) + (base_res)->start)
struct ichx_desc {
+ /* GPO_BLINK is available on this chipset */
+ bool uses_gpe0:1;
+
+ /* Whether the chipset has GPIO in GPE0_STS in the PM IO region
*/
+ bool uses_gpe0:1;
+
+ /*
+ * Some chipsets don't let reading output values on GPIO_LVL
register
+ * this option allows driver caching written output values
+ */
+ bool use_outlvl_cache:1;
+
/* Max GPIO pins the chipset can have */
uint ngpio;
@@ -77,24 +89,12 @@ struct ichx_desc {
const u8 (*regs)[3];
const u8 *reglen;
- /* GPO_BLINK is available on this chipset */
- bool have_blink;
-
- /* Whether the chipset has GPIO in GPE0_STS in the PM IO region
*/
- bool uses_gpe0;
-
/* USE_SEL is bogus on some chipsets, eg 3100 */
u32 use_sel_ignore[3];
/* Some chipsets have quirks, let these use their own
request/get */
int (*request)(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset);
int (*get)(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset);
-
- /*
- * Some chipsets don't let reading output values on GPIO_LVL
register
- * this option allows driver caching written output values
- */
- bool use_outlvl_cache;
};
ZJ
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-17 9:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-10 7:33 Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped yuankuiz
2018-04-10 7:45 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 8:51 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 8:54 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 7:55 ` Subject: [PATCH] " Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10 8:12 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 8:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-04-10 8:15 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 9:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10 10:07 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 11:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10 14:08 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 14:49 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 23:09 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 23:20 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20 1:47 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20 6:44 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20 19:24 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-25 7:01 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-10 11:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 12:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-04-10 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 12:33 ` Subject: [PATCH] " Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 15:14 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-10 16:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-10 15:41 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: whinge about bool bitfields Joe Perches
2018-04-10 18:19 ` [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions Joe Perches
2018-04-10 21:39 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-10 21:53 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-10 22:00 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-11 8:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-11 16:29 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-11 16:51 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-12 6:22 ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-12 6:42 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-12 7:03 ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-12 8:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-14 21:19 ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-17 9:07 ` yuankuiz [this message]
2018-04-18 18:38 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-19 4:40 ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-19 4:51 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-19 5:16 ` Julia Lawall
2018-04-19 6:48 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-19 10:42 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-20 1:31 ` yuankuiz
2018-04-11 17:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12 7:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-04-12 8:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12 9:35 ` Andrea Parri
2018-04-12 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12 12:01 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-12 12:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-12 12:38 ` Joe Perches
2018-04-12 16:47 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-12 11:52 ` Kalle Valo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e7cbe275136b86083ff70d9af26f41bf@codeaurora.org \
--to=yuankuiz@codeaurora.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=julia.lawall@lip6.fr \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox