Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:58:06 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alan Stern <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |