On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Given that we now have a standard kernel-wide, c99-friendly way of
> expressing true and false, I'd suggest that this decision can be revisited.
>
> Because a "true" is significantly more meaningful (and hence readable)
> thing than a bare "1".
OK, I'm really not happy with doing this for three reasons:
1. It's inviting huge amounts of driver churn changing bitfields to
booleans
2. I do find it to be a readability issue. Like most driver writers,
I'm used to register layouts, and those are simple bitfields, so I don't
tend to think true and false, I think 1 and 0.
3. Having a different, special, type for single bit bitfields (while
still using u<n> for multi bit bitfields) is asking for confusion, and
hence trouble at the driver level.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
