Subject: Re: Conversion to generic boolean
From: Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>
To: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>
Cc: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com,
       linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <44F3582B.3060000@student.ltu.se>
References: <44EFBEFA.2010707@student.ltu.se>
	 <20060828093202.GC8980@infradead.org>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0608281255100.14305@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
	 <44F2DEDC.3020608@student.ltu.se> <1156792540.2367.2.camel@entropy>
	 <44F3582B.3060000@student.ltu.se>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:19:24 -0700
Message-Id: <1156799964.24135.2.camel@entropy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2013
Lines: 60

On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:55 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> Nicholas Miell wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 14:17 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: 
> >
> >>Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >>    
> >>
> >>>>>Just would like to ask if you want patches for:
> >>>>>         
> >>>>>
> >>>>Total NACK to any of this boolean ididocy.  I very much hope you didn't
> >>>>get the impression you actually have a chance to get this merged.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>* (Most importent, may introduce bugs if left alone)
> >>>>>Fixing boolean checking, ex:
> >>>>>if (bool == FALSE)
> >>>>>to
> >>>>>if (!bool)
> >>>>>          
> >>>>>
> >>>>this one of course makes sense, but please do it without introducing
> >>>>any boolean type.  Getting rid of all the TRUE/FALSE defines and converting
> >>>>all scsi drivers to classic C integer as boolean semantics would be
> >>>>very welcome janitorial work.
> >>>>   
> >>>>
> >>>I don't get it. You object to the 'idiocy' 
> >>>(http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/27/281), but find the x==FALSE -> !x 
> >>>a good thing?
> >>>     
> >>>
> >>That is error-prone. Not "==FALSE" but what happens if x is (for some 
> >>reason) not 1 and then "if (x==TRUE)".
> >>    
> >
> >If you're using _Bool, that isn't possible. (Except at the boundaries
> >where you have to validate untrusted data -- and the compiler makes that
> >more difficult, because it "knows" that a _Bool can only be 0 or 1 and
> >therefore your check to see if it's not 0 or 1 can "safely" be
> >eliminated.)
> >  
> >
> Yes, true. But there is no _Bool's in the kernel (linus-git), only one 
> in script/.
> 

Sorry, I was under the impression that the purpose of the generic
boolean patch was to switch the kernel over to C's generic boolean.


-- 
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>

-
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/