On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 10:34 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. Sorry, I was addressing the general idea of using booleans in drivers. > All it's doing is replacing the driver's private TRUE/FALSE with the > kernel-wide ones. I already addressed that one ... I prefer bare 0 and 1. However, if the driver writer wants to use TRUE/FALSE, I won't specifically reject it. I really don't like the lower case true/false. 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
