From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kimdon Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] d80211: remove bitfields from ieee80211_tx_control Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:26:55 -0700 Message-ID: <20061017172655.GB13701@devicescape.com> References: <200610161807.25261.mb@bu3sch.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Michael Buesch , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , Jiri Benc Return-path: Received: from mail.devicescape.com ([207.138.119.2]:49090 "EHLO mail.devicescape.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751345AbWJQR05 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:26:57 -0400 To: Simon Barber Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org I am not particularily attached to bitfields or no bitfields. I am interested in getting d80211 merged. Bitfields have been discussed as an important TODO. Perhaps this can serve as a starting point for discussion of the tasks to complete before d80211 is merged? On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:34:07PM -0700, Simon Barber wrote: > Removing the bitfields makes the code much harder to read and maintain. I agree that we end up with more characters in the file, the bitfield syntax is more concise. However, I don't find it 'much' harder to read or maintain, it is a matter of taste. > Here we are working around a problem with the compiler by making the > code ugly - rather than fixing the compiler. The compilers are getting > better and better (GCC 4 has much better handling of this type of > optimization) but the code will remain ugly for ever. Well at least as far as code size goes gcc 4.1.2 still produces slightly larger code with the bitfields. -David