Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755223AbXLGDXE (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:23:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753099AbXLGDWv (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:22:51 -0500 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:48410 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752975AbXLGDWu (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:22:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:22:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20071206.192249.193354742.davem@davemloft.net> To: ricknu-0@student.ltu.se Cc: xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, akpm@osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Patch] net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c: Some small improvements From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <4758093A.7010608@student.ltu.se> References: <20071206110123.GB2469@hacking> <20071206.031434.179419183.davem@davemloft.net> <4758093A.7010608@student.ltu.se> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1339 Lines: 33 From: Richard Knutsson Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:37:46 +0100 > David Miller wrote: > > But this time I'll just let you know up front that I > > don't see much value in this patch. It is not a clear > > improvement to replace int's with bool's in my mind and > > the other changes are just whitespace changes. > > > Is it not an improvement to distinct booleans from actual values? Do you > use integers for ASCII characters too? It can also avoid some potential > bugs like the 'if (i == TRUE)'... > What is wrong with 'size_t' (since it is unsigned, compared to (some) > 'int')? When you say "int found;" is there any doubt in your mind that this integer is going to hold a 1 or a 0 depending upon whether we "found" something? That's the problem I have with these kinds of patches, they do not increase clarity, it's just pure mindless edits. In new code, fine, use booleans if you want. I would even accept that it helps to change to boolean for arguments to functions that are global in scope. But not for function local variables in cases like this. -- 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/