Re: [PATCH net-next v6 01/23] asm: simd context helper API

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On 1 October 2018 at 03:43, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:35 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Oh, and another thing (and I'm surprised checkpatch.pl didn't complain
>> >>>>>>> about it): the use of typedef in new code is strongly discouraged.
>> >>>>>>> This policy predates my involvement, so perhaps Joe can elaborate on
>> >>>>>>> the rationale?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> In case it matters, the motivation for making this a typedef is I
>> >>>>>> could imagine this at some point turning into a more complicated
>> >>>>>> struct on certain platforms and that would make refactoring easier. I
>> >>>>>> could just make it `struct simd_context` now with 1 member though...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yes that makes sense
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The rationale for it being a typedef or moving to a struct now?
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes just switch to a struct.
>> >>
>> >> Okay. No problem with that, but will wait to hear from Joe first.
>> >
>> > Why do you need to hear from me again?
>> >
>> > As far as I know, the only info about typedef avoidance are in
>> > Documentation/process/coding-style.rst section 5.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I personally prefer it with the typedef. If this were my code, Iâd say the coding style is silly for opaque tiny structs like this.
>
> I'll stick with a typedef. Reading the style guide, this clearly falls
> into 5.a, 5.b, and maybe 5.c. For 5.a, at some point this will
> possibly contain architecture specific blobs. For 5.b, it is just an
> enum (integer) right now.

I can live with that, but other may still object.

In any case, since you are using the enum member as a bitfield, it
would be better to typedef it to int instead, and retain the enum
definition only for the symbolic constants.