On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 14:44 -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 13:11:52 -0700 > > > On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:24:32 -0500 > > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > However, could we compromise and just add TRUE = true, FALSE = false to > > > the enum? > > > > That sounds sane. But I don't recall all the details of the discussion > > and perhaps I'm missing something. > > > > I think the whole bool/true/false thing is pretty dissatisfactory really. > > Java gets this right and C cannot and will not and we end up with people > > using true and false as plain old "1" and "0". In that case, I think we go with what's there, which seems to be predominantly TRUE/FALSE. > I think it's more important to be consistent across the entire tree, > whatever we choose, than to be "nice" and add compat define hacks for > the sake of a select few stubborn drivers. > > If you're going to add those ugly "#define TRUE true" bits, the whole > point of the change is lost so you might as not make it at all. That too wouldn't be an unacceptable outcome ... 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
