On Sep 29, 2018, at 9:20 PM, Joe Perches [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2018-09-28 at 16:01 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:00 PM Ard Biesheuvel
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

On 28 September 2018 at 15:59, Jason A. Donenfeld [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:58 PM Ard Biesheuvel
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

On 28 September 2018 at 15:47, Jason A. Donenfeld [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:49 AM Ard Biesheuvel
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+typedef enum {
+       HAVE_NO_SIMD = 1 << 0,
+       HAVE_FULL_SIMD = 1 << 1,
+       HAVE_SIMD_IN_USE = 1 << 31
+} simd_context_t;
+

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, I’d say the coding style is silly for opaque tiny structs like this.