Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 13:28:28 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc:     Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in
 voluntary_active_balance()
Message-ID: <20200507132828.1af39b80@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <jhjpnbg6lkf.mognet@arm.com>
References: <20200507110625.37254-1-yanaijie@huawei.com>
        <jhjpnbg6lkf.mognet@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 07 May 2020 12:17:36 +0100
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote:

> On 07/05/20 12:06, Jason Yan wrote:
> > Fix the following coccicheck warning:
> >
> > kernel/sched/fair.c:9375:9-10: WARNING: return of 0/1 in function
> > 'voluntary_active_balance' with return type bool
> >  
> 
> It's perfectly safe to return 0/1 in a boolean function; that said seeing
> as this is the second attempt at "fixing" this I'm tempted to say we should
> pick it up...
> 

Actually, I disagree. We should push back on the check to not warn on 0/1
of boolean. Why is this a warning?

Fixes like this just add noise to the git history.

-- Steve