Re: [PATCH] locktorture: Fix assignment of boolean variables

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 12:37:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 04:31:49PM +0800, Wen Yang wrote:
> > > Fix the following warnings reported by coccinelle:
> > > 
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:703:6-10: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:918:2-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:949:3-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:682:2-19: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:688:2-19: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:648:2-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:654:2-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> > > 
> > > This patch also makes the code more readable.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > CC: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > Adding the current maintainers on CC.
> 
> So I strongly disagree with this. Anybody that has trouble with 0/1 vs
> false/true needs to stay the heck away from C.

Indeed, and it's actually *worse* to read, as 0/1 stands out more and is 
more compact than false/true...

The only reasonable case where bool is recommended is when functions are 
returning it, to make sure there's no mishap returning something else.

But for a plain .c variable? Nope.

> I would suggest we delete that stupid coccinelle scripts that generates
> these pointless warns.

Ack.

Thanks,

	Ingo