Re: [PATCH] md: bitwise operations might not fit in a "bool"

[Neil Brown]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:20:53 +0300
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 07/22/2010 02:55 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:44:53 +0300
> > Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >>
> >> when taking a resolute of a bit-wise AND as true false. Better / faster
> >> to make it a boolean operation.
> >>
> >> This fixes a bug and a crash because the flags field did not fit into
> >> the bool operands.
> > 
> > No, that won't work.
> > Read the rest of the code and see where 'do_sync' and 'do_barriers' are used.
> > 
> > NeilBrown
> > 
> 
> You are right! (I didn't look)
> 
> the use of "bool" was wrong from the get go. it was never a bool operation.
> What was the guy thinking? What is that do_XXX name? that name should change
> as well. Perhaps flg_sync, flg_barriers.

Check the git history - 'bool' was originally appropriate.  But when the
value was recently changed, the type and name were not.
I would actually prefer "sync_flg" and "barrier_flg", but your suggestion
that we change the name as well as the type is a good one.

Thanks,
NeilBrown
--
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/