On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 06:43:22PM -0500, John de la Garza wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 11:20:29PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 18:54:00 -0500, John de la Garza said:
> >
> > > It should not be assumed that true will always be 1 as defined in
> > > include/linux/stddef.h, right?
> >
> > No, I mean use an actual 'bool' type rather than 'int'. Consider this from
> > kernel/softirq.c:
>
> yes, bool has two possible values true and false
>
> from include/linux/stddef.h:
> enum {
> false = 0,
> true = 1
> };
>
>
> I assume it is a bad idea to depend on true being 1, right? I mean, I
> should assume that true could be changed to any non 0 value in the future,
> right?
Why would that matter? Just always test for "true" and "false" and you
will be fine.
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Kernelnewbies mailing list
Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
