On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:42:12 -0600 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > Confused. The patch changes TRUE to true and FALSE to false. The code wasn't using bitfields before and isn't using them afterwards. I wouldn't expect there to be any change in generated code. All it's doing is replacing the driver's private TRUE/FALSE with the kernel-wide ones. - 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
