Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9o7_Xh=dZfnEHbPCJdqzXW1L5R7qjg=_sqPZiP2KmTc1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180925145622.29959-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20180925145622.29959-2-Jason@zx2c4.com>
 <CAKv+Gu9e35+AyktmSq9qeNE0LR83_yrEEB3DiQv0bmyArivqRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu9kbLPZH4W0zKAfuv-b11mcDaZ05HUauvh9gMZVGVR0AQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHmME9pfs0_MsD9QAGfSm31_w-=6BCF_gZO04XkfhD=mEoZmtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu__7mZFFq6qC=8yh0OuaV+TCCLFt6nm8yJfaANHUPrJ=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHmME9owF+3aQaZUkK4KkfnJna+DK=GoWV8yf-Wb+gH4w3y9eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKv+Gu9FAVVOiYyGovYZ19-107_6sK9Ya6LnK=AQkTgctMmu5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHmME9rqsOid6UOx+VTsFzJLEiaXpTP_z_wvHC6MbeAQUeEtHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8afdd3b1c51587708db6ae878eb0a7e9f8b5673a.camel@perches.com>
 <3E9E1888-026E-45C1-8AA7-DADA211EDBDF@amacapital.net> <CAHmME9o7_Xh=dZfnEHbPCJdqzXW1L5R7qjg=_sqPZiP2KmTc1Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 09:18:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu-9i28ncTCzZLFLoJsmWjVJGiJAUCmRCCc6VhiqeySV0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 01/23] asm: simd context helper API
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@dei.uc.pt>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 1 October 2018 at 03:43, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:35 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wro=
te:
>> >>>>>>> Oh, and another thing (and I'm surprised checkpatch.pl didn't co=
mplain
>> >>>>>>> about it): the use of typedef in new code is strongly discourage=
d.
>> >>>>>>> This policy predates my involvement, so perhaps Joe can elaborat=
e 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 easie=
r. 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=E2=80=
=99d say the coding style is silly for opaque tiny structs like this.
>
> I'll stick with a typedef. Reading the style guide, this clearly falls
> into 5.a, 5.b, and maybe 5.c. For 5.a, at some point this will
> possibly contain architecture specific blobs. For 5.b, it is just an
> enum (integer) right now.

I can live with that, but other may still object.

In any case, since you are using the enum member as a bitfield, it
would be better to typedef it to int instead, and retain the enum
definition only for the symbolic constants.