Re: [PATCH 03/13] pnfsd-block: reverse boolean_t values so they make sense

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 03:48:16PM +0200, Benny Halevy wrote:
> From: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benny Halevy <bhalevy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/nfsd/bl_ops.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/bl_ops.c b/fs/nfsd/bl_ops.c
> index 89249c4..4d2939e 100644
> --- a/fs/nfsd/bl_ops.c
> +++ b/fs/nfsd/bl_ops.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
>  #endif
>  
>  
> -typedef enum {True, False} boolean_t;
> +typedef enum {False = 0, True = !False} boolean_t;

Shouldn't we just use "bool"?

--b.

>  /* ---- block layoutget and commit structure ---- */
>  typedef struct bl_layout_rec {
>  	struct list_head	blr_hash,
> -- 
> 1.7.6
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux