On Wednesday, 22 of October 2008, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:50:40AM +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, 11 of September 2008, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > pci subsystem wakeup handler.
> >
> > Perhaps add a bit more explanation here - what is introduced, why and why this
> > particular way.
> I'll add a kernel doc in later post.
>
> > > +static bool pci_handle_one_wakeup_event(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> > > +{
> >
> > I don't really like that being a boolean function. I'd make it return 0 on
> > success and error code on failure.
> Oh, in my previous post, somebody like a boolean and then you like an int
> in the mail list. Either is ok to me, but I'd like to have a reason
> instead of a 'like' or 'unlike'.
That was probably me, but in a different context. ;-)
Use 'bool' for functions that are intended as boolean, eg.
'system_entering_hibernation()' will return 'true' if the system is entering
hibernation at the moment and 'false' otherwise, but for functions like
pci_handle_one_wakeup_event() the standard it to return 0 on success, so IMO
we should follow the standard.
HTH
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
