On Monday, January 26, 2015 09:30:55 AM Quentin Lambert wrote: > Sorry for the delay in answering .... > > On 22/01/2015 17:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 09:49:41 AM Quentin Lambert wrote: > >> These patches convert local variables from int to bool when relevant. > > And what exactly is the need for that? Does that fix any functional problems? > > > > > It doesn't fix any functional problem. The point of this patch > is to increase the code readability by lifting some of the ambiguities > that appear when using an integer variable as boolean. > > My understanding is that by explicitly using a boolean declaration > when it is relevant it clearly informs the reader that the variable > is going to represent a binary state. Moreover, using the keywords > true and false help indicate that the variable will not be involved > in any computation other than boolean arithmetic. Well, in the new code, yes. The existing code is a different matter though and it doesn't actually hurt if you leave the ints where they are, so there's no reason to make those changes. If you change old code and the change is not trivial (eg. fixes of white space or comments, or kernel messages etc.) and someone enounters a bug that may be related to it, they will have to go through your changes to see if that's not the source of the bug. That's not really productive. -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
