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

[Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 07:29:40AM -1000, Joey Pabalinas wrote:
> 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>

done, thanks

Jason