On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 11:15 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:32:02 +0100
> > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 05:24:42AM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hello
> >>>
> >>>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.
> >
> >
> > 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 ;)
Not sure whether this is meant in favour of one or the other but we are
not programming in C strictly speaking but in C99+gccisms and C99
includes _Bool...
ps. I am definitely in favour of a kernel wide boolean type and will
certainly refuse any patches that remove the NTFS boolean type and
replace it with an open-coded 0/1... I can only imagine that most other
maintainers who presently define their own boolen types will do the
same...
Best regards,
Anton
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net
WWW: http://www.linux-ntfs.org/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
-
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
