Re: [PATCH] staging: octeon: type change from uint<bits>_t to u<bits>
David Laight <[email protected]> Tue, 10 Feb 2026 10:19:52 +0000
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.outreachy,dev.linux.lists.linux-staging,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20260210101952.631bf50c@pumpkin> |
On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:36:31 -0400 Yoelvis Oliveros <[email protected]> wrote: > Runing the ckeckpatch.pl on the staging/octeon driver they where using > uint<8/16/32/64>_T as type declaration and the checkpatch.pl was > putting a [CHECK] flag on those and that they should be change to > u<8/16/32/64> > ... > struct { > - u64 bufs : 8; > - u64 ip_offset : 8; > - u64 vlan_valid : 1; > u64 vlan_stacked : 1; > - u64 unassigned : 1; > - u64 vlan_cfi : 1; > - u64 vlan_id : 12; > - u64 pr : 4; > - u64 unassigned2 : 8; > - u64 dec_ipcomp : 1; > - u64 tcp_or_udp : 1; > - u64 dec_ipsec : 1; > - u64 is_v6 : 1; > - u64 software : 1; > - u64 L4_error : 1; > - u64 is_frag : 1; > - u64 IP_exc : 1; > - u64 is_bcast : 1; > - u64 is_mcast : 1; > - u64 not_IP : 1; > - u64 rcv_error : 1; > - u64 err_code : 8; > } s; As a separate issue, what is the purpose of all these bit-field structures? You can't portably use C bit-fields to map hardware registers or network packets. It isn't just byte-order, the 'bit order' can differ even for the same endianness. It also doesn't seem ideal to base everything on u64. The (aligned) 8 bit fields should really be plain 'u8', there are places where it does make a difference. David