On Mon, 25 Apr, at 04:18:41PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 25 April 2016 at 16:15, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Apr, at 03:12:01PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >> >+static void efi_call_virt_check_flags(unsigned long flags, const char *call)
> >> >+{
> >> >+ unsigned long cur_flags;
> >> >+ bool mismatch;
> >> >+
> >> >+ local_save_flags(cur_flags);
> >> >+
> >> >+ mismatch = !!((cur_flags ^ flags) & ARCH_EFI_IRQ_FLAGS_MASK);
> >>
> >> nit: the assignment itself is already a conversion to bool, so the
> >> excitement is redundant here.
> >
> > This was intentional. I asked Mark to make this change so that it's
> > explicit for the developer that we're performing the type conversion.
>
> But replacing an implicit boolean cast with an explicit one makes
> little sense, no? Don't we simply want '!= 0' here if you need a
> boolean expression?
Aha but '!!' is fewer characters to type!!
I'm not that bothered as long as we don't stuff an int into a bool
without giving the programmer some idea we're doing that. It's not
about the compiler getting it wrong, more about a developer
introducing a bug when they change the code in the future.
Unless anyone objects, I'll fix this up to use '!= 0' when I apply it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
