Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:56:21 -0700 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: add support for regulators on the ab8500 MFD |
| |
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 03:42:53PM -0200, Thiago Farina wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Mark Brown
> > There is no reason to do this, logical values are treated as 0 and 1 in > > C. Using false and true is clear and won't cause any difference in > > code.
> In C99 I suppose that is true and legal?
Yes. C has always used 1 and 0 as the numerical mappings for logical values, the addition of the keywords did not change them.
> >> Maybe like this? > >> return (ret & info->mask) ? 1: 0;
> > No, that's needlessly obfuscated.
> Obfuscated? What you mean? It is a driver, and people reading and > writing a driver would know what it means, no?
Adding the ternery operator just makes the code more noisy for no benefit.
> Would be much simpler if it was just (like done in ab3100.c):
> return (ret & info->mask);
Yes, though there's no problem with the current code either. -- 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/
| |