Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 6)

[ricknu-0]

Citerar Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx>:

> Fun stuff to do in the future:
>   Convert test_bit() and various other test_*() and
> 	atomic_*() operators to return bool.
>   Convert many TRUE/FALSE to true/false, in a patch of
> 	similar size to Andrew's March 2006 patch entitled:
> 	"[patch 1/1] consolidate TRUE and FALSE".
>   Convert a variety of spellings of BOOLEAN to "bool".
>   Convert routines and variables using the old C
> 	convention of int/0/1 for boolean to the
> 	new bool/false/true.
>   How do we detect breakage that results from converting
> 	an apparent boolean to these values, when the
> 	code actually worked by using more than just
> 	values 0 and 1 for the variable in question?
>   How do we detect any breakage caused by possible changes
> 	in the sizeof variables whose type we changed?
>   Various sparse and/or gcc checks that benefit from
> 	knowing the additional constraints on bool types.

Well... that's some work to be done :)

Will save the list and try to mark it of along the road.

>                   Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.925.600.0401

/Richard Knutsson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/