Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932200AbWIEMkk (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:40:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932201AbWIEMkk (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:40:40 -0400 Received: from gepetto.dc.ltu.se ([130.240.42.40]:61866 "EHLO gepetto.dc.ltu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932200AbWIEMkj (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Sep 2006 08:40:39 -0400 Message-ID: <44FD71C6.20006@student.ltu.se> Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:47:02 +0200 From: Richard Knutsson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.1.fc4 (X11/20060501) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nathan Scott CC: akpm@osdl.org, xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm3 2/2] fs/xfs: Converting into generic boolean References: <44F833C9.1000208@student.ltu.se> <20060904150241.I3335706@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <44FBFEE9.4010201@student.ltu.se> <20060905130557.A3334712@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20060905130557.A3334712@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2246 Lines: 79 Nathan Scott wrote: >On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 12:24:41PM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: > > >>Nathan Scott wrote: >> >> >>>Hmm, so your bool is better than the next guys bool[ean[_t]]? :) >>> >>> >>Well yes, because it is not "mine". ;) >>It is, after all, just a typedef of the C99 _Bool-type. >> >> > >Hmm, one is really no better than the other IMO. > > IMO the _Bool is better because that lets the compiler do its magic. >>>I took the earlier patch and completed it, switching over to int >>>use in place of boolean_t in the few places it used - I'll merge >>>that at some point, when its had enough testing. >>> >>> >>> >>Is that set in stone? Or is there a chance to (in my opinion) improve >>the readability, by setting the variables to their real type. >> >> > >Nothings completely "set in stone" ... anyone can (and does) offer >their own opinion. The opinion of people who a/ read and write XFS >code alot and b/ test their changes, is alot more interesting than >the opinion of those who don't, however. > > Of course! :) No critisism intended. Just the notion: "your" guys was the ones to make those to boolean(_t), and now you seem to want to patch them away because I tried to make them more general. >In reality, from an XFS point of view, there are so few uses of the >local boolean_t and so little value from it, that it really is just >not worth getting involved in the pending bool code churn IMO (I see >72 definitions of TRUE and FALSE in a recent mainline tree, so you >have your work cut out for you...). > > So, is the: B_FALSE -> false B_TRUE -> true ok by you? >"int needflush;" is just as readable (some would argue moreso) as >"bool needflush;" and thats pretty much the level of use in XFS - > > How are you sure "needflush" is, for example, not a counter? >and we're using the "int" form in so many other places anyway... >but, I'll see what the rest of the XFS folks think and take it from >there. > > Ok >cheers. > > cu - 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/