On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 12:14 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 08 May 2007 10:11:00 -0500 > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > That being said, the patch is moderately wrong (or at least incomplete) > > > because it does things like: > > > > > > - unsigned char done = FALSE; > > > + unsigned char done = false; > > > > > > whereas it should have done > > > > > > - unsigned char done = FALSE; > > > + bool done = false; > > > > And the value to the driver of this transformation? > > Not having to define private versions of TRUE and FALSE. That's > a great blinking "something is wrong here" sign. Agree. I would like to get rid of private versions of these. > Obviously something like TRUE/FALSE should be a kernel-wide thing, not a > driver-private thing. After quite some discussion and consideration, we > decided to stick with standard unmodified C99 (not C++) and implemented > that in include/linux/types.h and in include/linux/stddef.h. > > Now, driver authors can go off and ignore all this, but others will not. That > driver-private TRUE/FALSE is a big fat target saying "krufty, clean me up". Agree ... my complaint is the use of bool in the above example and the fact that true/false are defined in stddef.h whereas almost every driver uses TRUE/FALSE. I really prefer the upcased latter version which is well understood in C circles (and the private definitions can be excised with a lot less churn than downcasing every instance of TRUE/FALSE). However, could we compromise and just add TRUE = true, FALSE = false to the enum? 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
