On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:55 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: > Nicholas Miell wrote: > > >On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 14:17 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: > > > >>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? > >>> > >>> > >>That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some > >>reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)". > >> > > > >If you're using _Bool, that isn't possible. (Except at the boundaries > >where you have to validate untrusted data -- and the compiler makes that > >more difficult, because it "knows" that a _Bool can only be 0 or 1 and > >therefore your check to see if it's not 0 or 1 can "safely" be > >eliminated.) > > > > > Yes, true. But there is no _Bool's in the kernel (linus-git), only one > in script/. > Sorry, I was under the impression that the purpose of the generic boolean patch was to switch the kernel over to C's generic boolean. -- Nicholas Miell <nmiell@xxxxxxxxxxx> - 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
