Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in voluntary_active_balance()

[Joe Perches]

On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 13:30 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 13:28:28 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > It's perfectly safe to return 0/1 in a boolean function; that said seeing
> > > as this is the second attempt at "fixing" this I'm tempted to say we should
> > > pick it up...
> > >   
> > 
> > Actually, I disagree. We should push back on the check to not warn on 0/1
> > of boolean. Why is this a warning?
> 
> If anything, we can teach people to try to understand their fixes, to see
> if something is really a fix or not. Blindly accepting changes like this,
> is no different than blindly submitting patches because some tool says its
> an issue.

<shrug>

Most people seem to prefer bool returns with apparent bool constants
even though true and false are enumerator constants (int) of 1 and 0
in the kernel.

from include/linux/stddef.h:

enum {
	false	= 0,
	true	= 1
};