In commit 7967656ffbfa ("coding-style: Clarify the expectations around
bool") the check to dis-allow bool structure members was removed from
checkpatch.pl. It promotes bool structure members to store boolean
values. This enhances code readability.
Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c | 6 +++---
drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c
index 4abb6178cb9f..294b184d4a49 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.c
@@ -1648,7 +1648,7 @@ int vchiq_mmal_component_init(struct vchiq_mmal_instance *instance,
for (idx = 0; idx < VCHIQ_MMAL_MAX_COMPONENTS; idx++) {
if (!instance->component[idx].in_use) {
component = &instance->component[idx];
- component->in_use = 1;
+ component->in_use = true;
break;
}
}
@@ -1724,7 +1724,7 @@ int vchiq_mmal_component_init(struct vchiq_mmal_instance *instance,
destroy_component(instance, component);
unlock:
if (component)
- component->in_use = 0;
+ component->in_use = false;
mutex_unlock(&instance->vchiq_mutex);
return ret;
@@ -1747,7 +1747,7 @@ int vchiq_mmal_component_finalise(struct vchiq_mmal_instance *instance,
ret = destroy_component(instance, component);
- component->in_use = 0;
+ component->in_use = false;
mutex_unlock(&instance->vchiq_mutex);
diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.h b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.h
index 70eda6cac1c6..c5be86b0479d 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.h
+++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/vchiq-mmal/mmal-vchiq.h
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ struct vchiq_mmal_port {
};
struct vchiq_mmal_component {
- u32 in_use:1;
+ bool in_use:1;
bool enabled:1;
u32 handle; /* VideoCore handle for component */
u32 inputs; /* Number of input ports */
--
2.38.1
> struct vchiq_mmal_component {
> - u32 in_use:1;
> + bool in_use:1;
> bool enabled:1;
The patch you referenced says:
+If a structure has many true/false values, consider consolidating them into a
+bitfield with 1 bit members, or using an appropriate fixed width type, such as
+u8.
The code did exactly this, using two bits fields, in one u32. A bool
probably takes up 4 bytes, maybe 8 bytes, so this change probably
doubles the storage size for these two fields. Are these fields on the
hot path, where an extra AND instruction would make a difference?
Andrew
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 01:23:36AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > struct vchiq_mmal_component {
> > - u32 in_use:1;
> > + bool in_use:1;
> > bool enabled:1;
>
> The patch you referenced says:
>
> +If a structure has many true/false values, consider consolidating them into a
> +bitfield with 1 bit members, or using an appropriate fixed width type, such as
> +u8.
>
> The code did exactly this, using two bits fields, in one u32. A bool
> probably takes up 4 bytes, maybe 8 bytes, so this change probably
> doubles the storage size for these two fields.
In GCC and Clang bools take a byte, but the C language is vague and
other compilers are free to do it differently.
> Are these fields on the
> hot path, where an extra AND instruction would make a difference?
This patch takes the first u32 for "in_use" and squeezes it into the
same byte as "enabled" so it makes the struct four bytes smaller. There
is still a 3 byte struct hole between "enabled" and "handle" so we could
add more 62 bool bitfields if we wanted.
In the v2 patch these become:
bool in_use;
bool enabled;
One byte each and there is a two byte gap before "handle".
regards,
dan carpenter