Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:48:16 +0200 | From | Richard Knutsson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm2] fs/jfs: Conversion to generic boolean |
| |
Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 01:33 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: > > >>Dave Kleikamp wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:42 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Just why is it, that when there is a change to make locally defined >>>>booleans into a more generic one, it is converted into integers? ;) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I just see this as an opportunity to make jfs more closely fit the >>>coding style of the mainline kernel. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>That is what I am trying to do, making bool as accepted as any other >>integer. No more, no less. >> >> > >Okay. My initial impression is that you were just offended by the >ugliness of having so many different definitions of true, false, and >boolean types. > > It isn't a pretty sight, but I think it is more important to let the "user" know what kind of value to expect from a function/variable. Then to prevent errors and letting the compiler know it is a boolean, I think a globally typedef of _Bool with defined (enum) true/false is a good thing. Just reminded my of the error-prone locally defined MAX/MIN and the global max/min.
>>>>I can understand if authors disprove making an integer into a boolean, >>>>but here it already were booleans. >>>>But hey, you are the maintainer ;) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>I could be persuaded to leave the declarations as boolean_t or even >>>making them bool, but right now I'm leaning toward making them int for >>>consistency. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>A root-beer maybe? >> >> > >heh > > > >>What do you say, can you hold on it for a while (can't be urgent, can >>it?) and see how the conversion go. Will take time for it during this >>week(end) and if the result is that almost no maintainer wants it, then... >>Just seem strange to having a boolean function but declaring it integer, >>for (in my knowledge) no reason. >> >> > >Sounds good to me. I think I'll go ahead and kill the use of TRUE and >FALSE, but hold off on the type change for now. > > To 0/1 or false/true? Thanks
- 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/
| |