On 09/02/2016 08:41 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:41 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/01/16 17:51, Joe Perches wrote:
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 00:47 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 09/01/16 13:11, Joe Perches wrote:
Assigning an int to a bitfield:1 can lose precision.
Change the caller argument uses from 1/0 to true/false.
Can you clarify how assigning 0 or 1 to a one-bit bitfield can cause a
loss of precision?
There are no existing defects.
Using 1/0 is not a loss of precision, it's just
changing to use bool avoids potential errors and
promotes consistency.
Other uses of this function already use true/false.
In the patch description you refer to loss of precision. However, your
patch does not address any loss of precision issues. So I think that the
patch description is misleading and could be made more clear.
I tend towards terse being better than verbose.
The original patch description says
"no change to objects"
What would you suggest?
Hello Joe,
How about the following:
dev_set_uevent_suppress() expects a boolean as second argument. Make
this clear by passing true/false instead of 1/0 as the second argument.
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
