Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2023 20:19:51 +0300 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc() |
| |
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 08:10:58PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:44:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:32:59PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:45:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:20:12PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 01:54:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:21:12PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 09:33 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:06:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
> > > > > > > > So what is the outcome of "int - bool + bool" in the line above? > > > > > > > > > > > > The same as with int - int [0 .. 1] + int [0 .. 1]. > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not. bool is defined as _Bool C99 type, so strictly speaking > > > > > you are mixing types int - _Bool + _Bool. > > > > > > > > 1. The original code already does that. You still haven't reacted on that. > > > > > > The original code was int - int + int. > > > > No. You missed the callers part. They are using boolean. > > I didn't miss and pointed you to the exact line which was implicitly > changed with your patch.
Yes, and this line doesn't change the status quo. We have boolean in the callers that implicitly went to the callee as int.
> > > > 2. Is what you are telling a problema? > > > > > > No, I'm saying that you took perfectly correct code which had all types > > > aligned and changed it to have mixed type arithmetic. > > > > And after this change it's perfectly correct code with less letters and hidden > > promotions (as a parameter to the function) and hence requires less cognitive > > energy to parse. > > > > So, the bottom line is the commit message you don't like, is it so? > > Please reread my and Paolo replies.
I have read them. My point is that you should also look at the callers to see the big picture.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |