On 19. 01. 24, 9:56, Tudor Ambarus wrote:

On 1/16/24 19:03, Sam Protsenko wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 4:25 AM Tudor Ambarus [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

There's a single flag defined as of now. Shrink the feature flags to u8
and aim for a better memory footprint for ``struct s3c24xx_uart_info``.

Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
---
  drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c | 2 +-
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
index 5df2bcebf9fb..598d9fe7a492 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c

@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ struct s3c24xx_uart_info {

         /* uart port features */

-       unsigned int            has_divslot:1;
+       u8                      has_divslot:1;

But that's already a bit field. Why does it matter which type it is?

If using unsigned int the bitfied is combined with the previous u8
fields, whereas if using u8 the bitfield will be independently defined.
So no benefit in terms of memory footprint, it's just a cosmetic change
to align the bitfield with the previous u8 fields. Allowing u32 for just
a bit can be misleading as one would ask itself where are the other
bits. Between a u32 bitfield and a bool a u8 bitfield seems like a good
compromise.

Why? What's wrong with bool? bitfields have terrible semantics wrt 
atomic writes for example.

-- 
js
suse labs


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel