Re: [PATCH] Introduce simple TRUE and FALSE boolean macros.

[Nick Piggin]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:

> by adding (temporarily) the definitions of TRUE and FALSE to types.h,
> you should then (theoretically) be able to delete over 100 instances
> of those same macros being *defined* throughout the source tree.
> you're not going to be deleting the hundreds and hundreds of *uses* of
> TRUE and FALSE (not yet, anyway) but, at the very least, by adding two
> lines to types.h, you can delete all those redundant *definitions* and
> make sure that nothing breaks.  (it shouldn't, of course, but it's
> always nice to be sure.)

Doesn't seem very worthwhile, and it legitimises this definition we're
trying to get rid of.

> *now*, once that's done, you can start going through the tree and
> doing the conversion from upper case to lower case, little by little,
> subsystem by subsystem.

I don't see why your patch is needed before the individual conversions?

> the predictable response will be, "you really should do that all at
> once."

You don't need to do it all at once.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/