lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> >Mixing up these two sorts of representations is a fertile source of
> >difficult-to-find bugs. If the C language included a strong distinction
> >between integers and booleans then the compiler would find these mistakes
> >for us... but it doesn't.
>
> Recently introduced "bool".

I haven't seen the new definition of "bool", but it can't possibly provide
a strong distinction between integers and booleans. That is, if x is
declared as an integer rather than as a bool, the compiler won't complain
about "if (x) ...".


On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> yeah, lets just flip the logic over, but combined with a rename so that
> we dont surprise not-yet-in-tree code [and documentation/books].
> queue_work() -> add_work() or something like that.

How about add_work_to_q() instead of queue_work() and add_work() instead
of schedule_work()?

Alan Stern

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-20 19:01    [W:0.123 / U:0.576 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site