On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:Have been some work done already. Has there been any problems?
Given that we now have a standard kernel-wide, c99-friendly way of
expressing true and false, I'd suggest that this decision can be revisited.
Because a "true" is significantly more meaningful (and hence readable)
thing than a bare "1".
OK, I'm really not happy with doing this for three reasons:
1. It's inviting huge amounts of driver churn changing bitfields to
booleans
2. I do find it to be a readability issue. Like most driver writers,It is a fundamental difference between an integer and a boolean. Have you seen anyone trying to do "bool var = true + true;"? ;)
I'm used to register layouts, and those are simple bitfields, so I don't
tend to think true and false, I think 1 and 0.
3. Having a different, special, type for single bit bitfields (whileI don't think a boolean should be view as a single bit bitfield. Ex:
still using u<n> for multi bit bitfields) is asking for confusion, and
hence trouble at the driver level.