On 2017/9/7 0:40, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 12:04:59AM +0800, zijun_hu wrote: >> On 2017/9/6 22:33, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:34:14AM +0800, zijun_hu wrote: >>>> From: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@xxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> type bool is used to index three arrays in alloc_and_link_pwqs() >>>> it doesn't look like conventional. >>>> >>>> it is fixed by using type int to index the relevant arrays. >>> >>> bool is a uint type which can be either 0 or 1. I don't see what the >>> benefit of this patch is.q >>> >> bool is NOT a uint type now, it is a new type introduced by gcc, it is >> rather different with "typedef int bool" historically > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n815.htm > > Because C has existed for so long without a Boolean type, however, the > new standard must coexist with the old remedies. Therefore, the type > name is taken from the reserved identifier space. To maintain > orthogonal promotion rules, the Boolean type is defined as an unsigned > integer type capable of representing the values 0 and 1. The more > conventional names for the type and its values are then made available > only with the inclusion of the <stdbool.h> header. In addition, the > header defines a feature test macro to aid in integrating new code > with old code that defines its own Boolean type. > in this case, i think type int is more suitable than bool in aspects of extendibility, program custom and consistency. -- 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>
