On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:41 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 09/01/16 17:51, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 00:47 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On 09/01/16 13:11, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > Assigning an int to a bitfield:1 can lose precision. > > > > Change the caller argument uses from 1/0 to true/false. > > > Can you clarify how assigning 0 or 1 to a one-bit bitfield can cause a > > > loss of precision? > > There are no existing defects. > > Using 1/0 is not a loss of precision, it's just > > changing to use bool avoids potential errors and > > promotes consistency. > > Other uses of this function already use true/false. > In the patch description you refer to loss of precision. However, your > patch does not address any loss of precision issues. So I think that the > patch description is misleading and could be made more clear. I tend towards terse being better than verbose. The original patch description says "no change to objects" What would you suggest? -- 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
