[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060828171804.09c01846.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:18:04 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>,
James.Bottomley@...elEye.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Conversion to generic boolean
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:32:02 +0100
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 05:24:42AM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > 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.
I was kinda planning on merging it ;)
I can't say that I'm in love with the patches, but they do improve the
situation.
At present we have >50 different definitions of TRUE and gawd knows how
many private implementations of various flavours of bool.
In that context, Richard's approach of giving the kernel a single
implementation of bool/true/false and then converting things over to use it
makes sense. The other approach would be to go through and nuke the lot,
convert them to open-coded 0/1.
I'm not particularly fussed either way, really. But the present situation
is nuts.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists