>> I was kinda planning on merging it ;) >> >> I can't say that I'm in love with the patches, but they do improve the >> situation. >> >> At present we have >50 different definitions of TRUE and gawd knows how >> many private implementations of various flavours of bool. >> >> In that context, Richard's approach of giving the kernel a single >> implementation of bool/true/false and then converting things over to use >> it >> makes sense. The other approach would be to go through and nuke the lot, >> convert them to open-coded 0/1. > > Well... we are programming in C here, aren't we ;) I like it for the annotation we get. int fluff; if(fluff == 0) This does not tell if fluff is an integer or a boolean (that is, what the programmer intended to do -- not the 'int' the compiler sees). If it had been if(!fluff), it would give a hint, but a lot of places also have !x where x really is intended to be an integer (and should have been x==0 or y==NULL resp.) Jan Engelhardt -- - 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
