On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 08:54:07AM +0200, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
> The one-bit bitfields are assigned true (1) or false (0) and checked
> for them respectively. While it should work either way and -1 is true
> as well it is more clear to see what's going on when using an unsigned int
> because 1 doesn't silently become -1 behind the label true.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Kepplinger <mart...@posteo.de>
> ---
> Thanks for looking at it. This is more of a question: Does this make sense
> to you now? I can be mistaken. It just wasn't totally clear to me at first
> sight and even though it should be, why not try to improve it.
>
> sparse called it 'dubious' before the change.
>
> (built but untested)
Patch is completely pointless, really,
and I don't get the motivation for it at all.
BUT.
If it makes someone happy,
and since all of our other bitfields in fact are declared "unsigned xyz:N",
for consistency we can make this unsigned as well.
Will probably fold this with some upcoming change in that struct anyways.
Lars
>
> drivers/block/drbd/drbd_interval.h | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_interval.h
> b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_interval.h
> index f38fcb0..8d670e6 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_interval.h
> +++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_interval.h
> @@ -9,8 +9,8 @@ struct drbd_interval {
> sector_t sector; /* start sector of the interval */
> unsigned int size; /* size in bytes */
> sector_t end; /* highest interval end in subtree */
> - int local:1 /* local or remote request? */;
> - int waiting:1;
> + unsigned int local:1; /* local or remote request? */
> + unsigned int waiting:1;
> };
>
> static inline void drbd_clear_interval(struct drbd_interval *i)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
