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;
References: <20200507110625.37254-1-yanaijie@huawei.com> <jhjpnbg6lkf.mognet@arm.com> <20200507132828.1af39b80@gandalf.local.home> <20200507133024.18dbe349@gandalf.local.home>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 26.3
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
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()
In-reply-to: <20200507133024.18dbe349@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 07 May 2020 18:52:03 +0100
Message-ID: <jhjimh7tyyk.mognet@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 07/05/20 18:30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 13:28:28 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
>> > 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?
>
> If anything, we can teach people to try to understand their fixes, to see
> if something is really a fix or not. Blindly accepting changes like this,
> is no different than blindly submitting patches because some tool says its
> an issue.
>

I don't disagree. To play devil's advocate, AFAICT that one coccinelle script
is part of the kernel tree, so some folks may think it worth to reduce the
warnings we get from those.

To give my side of things, this one felt a bit like the
"s/borked/broken/" patches that folks send out because they have a
spellcheck linter, i.e. the change is purely cosmetic. But yeah, I suppose
less gunk to go through via git blame is preferable.

> -- Steve