On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 8:18 AM Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29. 01. 25, 16:47, Uros Bizjak wrote:
The return values of some functions are of boolean type. Change the
type of these function to bool and adjust their return values.
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c b/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c
index 3fed7ae58b60..4d89a2d80d0f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
int sbf_port __initdata = -1; /* set via acpi_boot_init() */
-static int __init parity(u8 v)
+static bool __init parity(u8 v)
{
int x = 0;
int i;
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static int __init parity(u8 v)
v >>= 1;
}
- return x;
+ return !!x;
This "!!" is unnecessary and only obfuscates the code, right?
Not really, this idiom is used in place of (x != 0) to change the type
to the return type of the function in a pedantic way.