Re: [Patch] net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c: Some small improvements

[David Miller]

From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:37:46 +0100

> David Miller wrote:
> > But this time I'll just let you know up front that I
> > don't see much value in this patch.  It is not a clear
> > improvement to replace int's with bool's in my mind and
> > the other changes are just whitespace changes.
> >   
> Is it not an improvement to distinct booleans from actual values? Do you 
> use integers for ASCII characters too? It can also avoid some potential 
> bugs like the 'if (i == TRUE)'...
> What is wrong with 'size_t' (since it is unsigned, compared to (some) 
> 'int')?

When you say "int found;" is there any doubt in your mind that
this integer is going to hold a 1 or a 0 depending upon whether
we "found" something?

That's the problem I have with these kinds of patches, they do
not increase clarity, it's just pure mindless edits.

In new code, fine, use booleans if you want.

I would even accept that it helps to change to boolean for
arguments to functions that are global in scope.

But not for function local variables in cases like this.
--
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/