Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:44:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:32:59PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:45:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:20:12PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 01:54:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:21:12PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 09:33 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:06:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > > > So what is the outcome of "int - bool + bool" in the line above?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The same as with int - int [0 .. 1] + int [0 .. 1].
> > > > 
> > > > No, it is not. bool is defined as _Bool C99 type, so strictly speaking
> > > > you are mixing types int - _Bool + _Bool.
> > > 
> > > 1. The original code already does that. You still haven't reacted on that.
> > 
> > The original code was int - int + int.
> 
> No. You missed the callers part. They are using boolean.

I didn't miss and pointed you to the exact line which was implicitly
changed with your patch.

> 
> > > 2. Is what you are telling a problema?
> > 
> > No, I'm saying that you took perfectly correct code which had all types
> > aligned and changed it to have mixed type arithmetic.
> 
> And after this change it's perfectly correct code with less letters and hidden
> promotions (as a parameter to the function) and hence requires less cognitive
> energy to parse.
> 
> So, the bottom line is the commit message you don't like, is it so?

Please reread my and Paolo replies.

Thanks

> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 
>