On Sunday, April 8, 2018 10:46:27 AM CEST Joey Pabalinas wrote: > > --dohnnvt2hwn6rmo4 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Prefer bool over int for variables / returns which are > predicate expressions to make it explicit that these > expressions are evaluating simple "yes or no?" queries. In new code - yes. But changing old code just for this purpose is at least questionable. > This makes it more obvious which expressions are _not_ > that simple and require more attention, e.g. an `int ret` > meant to hold 0 or -ENOENT as a return value or an > `unsigned nmemb` meant to refer to the number of valid > members in some arbitrary array. > > Change relevant variable / return types from int to bool and > prefer a true / false value for predicate expressions versus > a plain 1 / 0 value. This makes a bunch of unrelated changes without a clear pattern in many places and I'm not convinced that the reason is good enough. > Signed-off-by: Joey Pabalinas <joeypabalinas@xxxxxxxxx> > > drivers/acpi/battery.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/acpi/ec.c | 20 +++++++++----------- > drivers/acpi/pci_root.c | 17 ++++++----------- > drivers/acpi/scan.c | 6 +++--- > include/acpi/acpi_bus.h | 2 +- > 5 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/battery.c b/drivers/acpi/battery.c > index bdb24d636d9acc9c1a..f1a5fb5252969f0478 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/battery.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/battery.c > @@ -1416,7 +1416,7 @@ static int acpi_battery_add(struct acpi_device *devic= > e) > battery->pm_nb.notifier_call =3D battery_notify; > register_pm_notifier(&battery->pm_nb); > =20 Broken whitespace. > - device_init_wakeup(&device->dev, 1); > + device_init_wakeup(&device->dev, true); > =20 > return result; > =20 > @@ -1434,7 +1434,7 @@ static int acpi_battery_remove(struct acpi_device *de= > vice) > =20 > if (!device || !acpi_driver_data(device)) > return -EINVAL; > - device_init_wakeup(&device->dev, 0); > + device_init_wakeup(&device->dev, false); > battery =3D acpi_driver_data(device); > unregister_pm_notifier(&battery->pm_nb); > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS_POWER > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/ec.c b/drivers/acpi/ec.c > index 30a5729565575f83cb..d4a564ab9cdd53046c 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/ec.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/ec.c > @@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ static inline bool acpi_ec_is_gpe_raised(struct acpi_ec= > *ec) > acpi_event_status gpe_status =3D 0; > =20 > (void)acpi_get_gpe_status(NULL, ec->gpe, &gpe_status); > - return (gpe_status & ACPI_EVENT_FLAG_STATUS_SET) ? true : false; > + return gpe_status & ACPI_EVENT_FLAG_STATUS_SET; And this isn't entirely correct even. You should apply !! to the expression to get the same result really. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
