Message-ID: <44EB8B2A.8030603@student.ltu.se>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:54:34 +0200
From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.1.fc4 (X11/20060501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
CC: Prajakta Gudadhe <pgudadhe@nvidia.com>, jeff@garzik.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Generic booleans in -mm (was: Re: [PATCH] Sgpio support in sata_nv)
References: <1156209426.2840.15.camel@dhcp-172-16-174-114.nvidia.com> <20060821224457.65de5111.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060821224457.65de5111.akpm@osdl.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1211
Lines: 38

Andrew Morton wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:17:06 -0700
>Prajakta Gudadhe <pgudadhe@nvidia.com> wrote:
>  
>
[snip]

>>...
>>
>>+
>>+static bool nv_sgpio_update_led(struct nv_sgpio_led *led, bool *on_off)
>>    
>>
>
>Please remove the new private implementation of `bool' and just use `int'. 
>There's ongoing discussion about how to do a kernel-wide implementation of
>bool, and adding new driver-private ones now just complicates that.
>  
>
Well, the discussion seem to have quiet down (so time to start it up 
again ;) ). But would you take a patch for a generic implementation of 
bool/false/true? I sent one 29th of July with no complaints or 
suggestions. I am happy to send it again.

About this patch, isn't better to leave the 'bool'-type if there is a 
will to make a common boolean? Easier to find and convert a local 
definition of bool then finding functions who are boolean, but decleard 
as some kind of integer.

Just a thought
/Richard Knutsson

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/