On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 15:48 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 01:33 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> >>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?
I was going to go ahead with the 0/1 thing, but on second thought, I'll
just hold off on the whole thing and see where this ends up. I may go
ahead and just accept your original patch. We lived with the ugly,
locally-defined TRUE & FALSE this long. Waiting a little longer can't
hurt.
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
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]
