Nathan Scott wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:21:13PM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
From: Richard Knutsson <[email protected]>
Converting:
'B_FALSE' into 'false'
'B_TRUE' into 'true'
'boolean_t' into 'bool'
Hmm, so your bool is better than the next guys bool[ean[_t]]? :)
Well yes, because it is not "mine". ;)
It is, after all, just a typedef of the C99 _Bool-type.
Seems like it'll be a few more days until the next cleanup patch
to remove _that_, so we shouldn't go that path.
A generic boolean to an integer? And if Andrew toss that patch, this one
will follow.
So what is wrong with this path?
Since we do use
the current boolean_t somewhat inconsistently in XFS, I'd say we
should just toss the thing and use int.
If _that_ is the problem, I am happy to help. Did not want to touch more
then the already defined "booleans", because it seemed to scare some people.
After all, what interest me next most to a generic boolean, is using
booleans when it obviously is a boolean.
I took the earlier patch and completed it, switching over to int
use in place of boolean_t in the few places it used - I'll merge
that at some point, when its had enough testing.
Is that set in stone? Or is there a chance to (in my opinion) improve
the readability, by setting the variables to their real type.
cheers.
best regards
--
VGER BF report: H 0.117186
-
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]
