Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm3 2/2] fs/xfs: Converting into generic boolean

[Richard Knutsson]

Nathan Scott wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:21:13PM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>  
>
> > From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Converting:
> > 'B_FALSE' into 'false'
> > 'B_TRUE'  into 'true'
> > 'boolean_t' into 'bool'
> >    
>
> Hmm, so your bool is better than the next guys bool[ean[_t]]? :)
>  
Well yes, because it is not "mine". ;)
It is, after all, just a typedef of the C99 _Bool-type.

> Seems like it'll be a few more days until the next cleanup patch
> to remove _that_, so we shouldn't go that path.
A generic boolean to an integer? And if Andrew toss that patch, this one 
will follow.
So what is wrong with this path?

>                                                 Since we do use
> the current boolean_t somewhat inconsistently in XFS, I'd say we
> should just toss the thing and use int.
>  
If _that_ is the problem, I am happy to help. Did not want to touch more 
then the already defined "booleans", because it seemed to scare some people.
After all, what interest me next most to a generic boolean, is using 
booleans when it obviously is a boolean.

> I took the earlier patch and completed it, switching over to int
> use in place of boolean_t in the few places it used - I'll merge
> that at some point, when its had enough testing.
>  
Is that set in stone? Or is there a chance to (in my opinion) improve 
the readability, by setting the variables to their real type.

> cheers.
>  
best regards


--
VGER BF report: H 0.117186
-
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/