![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Nathan Scott wrote: >On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 12:24:41PM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: > > >>Nathan Scott wrote: >> >> >>>Hmm, so your bool is better than the next guys bool[ean[_t]]? :) >>> >>> >>Well yes, because it is not "mine". ;) >>It is, after all, just a typedef of the C99 _Bool-type. >> >> > >Hmm, one is really no better than the other IMO. > > IMO the _Bool is better because that lets the compiler do its magic. >>>I took the earlier patch and completed it, switching over to int >>>use in place of boolean_t in the few places it used - I'll merge >>>that at some point, when its had enough testing. >>> >>> >>> >>Is that set in stone? Or is there a chance to (in my opinion) improve >>the readability, by setting the variables to their real type. >> >> > >Nothings completely "set in stone" ... anyone can (and does) offer >their own opinion. The opinion of people who a/ read and write XFS >code alot and b/ test their changes, is alot more interesting than >the opinion of those who don't, however. > > Of course! :) No critisism intended. Just the notion: "your" guys was the ones to make those to boolean(_t), and now you seem to want to patch them away because I tried to make them more general. >In reality, from an XFS point of view, there are so few uses of the >local boolean_t and so little value from it, that it really is just >not worth getting involved in the pending bool code churn IMO (I see >72 definitions of TRUE and FALSE in a recent mainline tree, so you >have your work cut out for you...). > > So, is the: B_FALSE -> false B_TRUE -> true ok by you? >"int needflush;" is just as readable (some would argue moreso) as >"bool needflush;" and thats pretty much the level of use in XFS - > > How are you sure "needflush" is, for example, not a counter? >and we're using the "int" form in so many other places anyway... >but, I'll see what the rest of the XFS folks think and take it from >there. > > Ok >cheers. > > cu - 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: 2006-09-05 12:43 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||