Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm2] fs/jfs: Conversion to generic boolean

[Richard Knutsson]

Dave Kleikamp wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 01:33 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>  
>
> > Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:42 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > Just why is it, that when there is a change to make locally defined 
> > > > booleans into a more generic one, it is converted into integers? ;)
> > > >   
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > I just see this as an opportunity to make jfs more closely fit the
> > > coding style of the mainline kernel.
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > That is what I am trying to do, making bool as accepted as any other 
> > integer. No more, no less.
> >    
>
> Okay.  My initial impression is that you were just offended by the
> ugliness of having so many different definitions of true, false, and
> boolean types.
>  
It isn't a pretty sight, but I think it is more important to let the 
"user" know what kind of value to expect from a function/variable.
Then to prevent errors and letting the compiler know it is a boolean, I 
think a globally typedef of _Bool with defined (enum) true/false is a 
good thing.
Just reminded my of the error-prone locally defined MAX/MIN and the 
global max/min.

> > > > I can understand if authors disprove making an integer into a boolean, 
> > > > but here it already were booleans.
> > > > But hey, you are the maintainer ;)
> > > >   
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > I could be persuaded to leave the declarations as boolean_t or even
> > > making them bool, but right now I'm leaning toward making them int for
> > > consistency.
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > A root-beer maybe?
> >    
>
> heh
>
>  
>
> > 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?
Thanks

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/