On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 12:58 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> Just would like to ask if you want patches for: > > > >Total NACK to any of this boolean ididocy. I very much hope you didn't > >get the impression you actually have a chance to get this merged. > > > >> * (Most importent, may introduce bugs if left alone) > >> Fixing boolean checking, ex: > >> if (bool == FALSE) > >> to > >> if (!bool) > > > >this one of course makes sense, but please do it without introducing > >any boolean type. Getting rid of all the TRUE/FALSE defines and converting > >all scsi drivers to classic C integer as boolean semantics would be > >very welcome janitorial work. > > I don't get it. You object to the 'idiocy' > (http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/27/281), but find the x==FALSE -> !x > a good thing? If the "if (x == FALSE) { ... }" would be a good thing, why don't we write "if ((x == FALSE) == TRUE) { ... }"? Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
