Re: [PATCH v4] coding-style: Clarify the expectations around bool

[Joey Pabalinas <joeypabalinas@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1642 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:48:13PM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> There has been some confusion since checkpatch started warning about bool
> use in structures, and people have been avoiding using it.
> 
> Many people feel there is still a legitimate place for bool in structures,
> so provide some guidance on bool usage derived from the entire thread that
> spawned the checkpatch warning.

Hey Jason,

I very much agree that the bool expectations could be much clearer, and this
patch is a nice step in that direction! Just a couple small nitpicks:

> +Do not use bool if cache line layout or size of the value matters, its size
> +and alignment varies based on the compiled architecture. Structures that are
> +optimized for alignment and size should not use bool.

+Do not use bool if cache line layout or size of the value matters, as its size
                                                                    ^
                                                                    |
Adding an "as" makes the sentence flow a bit cleaner: --------------

> +into a single bitwise 'flags' argument and 'flags' can often a more readable
> +alternative if the call-sites have naked true/false constants.

+into a single bitwise 'flags' argument and 'flags' can often be a more readable
                                                              ^
                                                              |
Missing a "be" here: -----------------------------------------

Ack from me after those two corrections.

Reviewed-by: Joey Pabalinas <joeypabalinas@gmail.com>

-- 
Cheers,
Joey Pabalinas

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]