Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add a --strict test for structs with bool member definitions

[Joe Perches]

(Adding Julia Lawall)

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.

> and the owners of that code will
> be wondering whether they should change them, and whether they should
> apply those remove-bool-in-struct patches which someone sent them.

Which is why the warning is --strict only

> So... can we please get some clarity here?


> ...
> 
> (ooh, https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384 is working this morning)
> 
> hm, Linus suggests that instead of using
> 
> 	bool mybool;
> 
> we should use
> 
> 	unsigned mybool:1;
> 
> However that introduces the risk that alterations of mybool will use
> nonatomic rmw operations.
> 
> 	unsigned myboolA:1;
> 	unsigned myboolB:1;
> 
> so
> 
> 	foo->myboolA = 1;
> 
> could scribble on concurrent alterations of foo->myboolB.  I think.

Without barriers, that could happen anyway.

To me, the biggest problem with conversions
from bool to bitfield is logical.  ie:

	unsigned int.singlebitfield = 4;

is not the same result as

	bool = 4;

because of implicit truncation vs boolean conversion
so a direct change of bool use in structs to unsigned
would also require logic analysis.