On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Given that we now have a standard kernel-wide, c99-friendly way of > expressing true and false, I'd suggest that this decision can be revisited. > > Because a "true" is significantly more meaningful (and hence readable) > thing than a bare "1". OK, I'm really not happy with doing this for three reasons: 1. It's inviting huge amounts of driver churn changing bitfields to booleans 2. I do find it to be a readability issue. Like most driver writers, I'm used to register layouts, and those are simple bitfields, so I don't tend to think true and false, I think 1 and 0. 3. Having a different, special, type for single bit bitfields (while still using u<n> for multi bit bitfields) is asking for confusion, and hence trouble at the driver level. James - 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
