Hi Vlastimil, On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 08:51:23AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 03/08/2017 06:25 AM, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hi Anshuman, > > > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:31:18PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > >> On 03/07/2017 12:06 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: > >>> With the discussion[1], I found it seems there are every PageFlags > >>> functions return bool at this moment so we don't need double > >>> negation any more. > >>> Although it's not a problem to keep it, it makes future users > >>> confused to use dobule negation for them, too. > >>> > >>> Remove such possibility. > >> > >> A quick search of '!!Page' in the source tree does not show any other > >> place having this double negation. So I guess this is all which need > >> to be fixed. > > > > Yeb. That's the why my patch includes only khugepagd part but my > > concern is PageFlags returns int type not boolean so user might > > be confused easily and tempted to use dobule negation. > > > > Other side is they who create new custom PageXXX(e.g., PageMovable) > > should keep it in mind that they should return 0 or 1 although > > fucntion prototype's return value is int type. > > > It shouldn't be > > documented nowhere. > > Was this double negation intentional? :P Nice catch! It seems you have a crystal ball. ;-) > > > Although we can add a little description > > somewhere in page-flags.h, I believe changing to boolean is more > > clear/not-error-prone so Chen's work is enough worth, I think. > > Agree, unless some arches benefit from the int by performance > for some reason (no idea if it's possible). > > Anyway, to your original patch: > > Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> Thanks! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
