[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1343665962.20897.8.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:32:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <thebigcorporation@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] user_hooks: New user hooks subsystem
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 12:07 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Not only does bool describe it better, it should also allow gcc to
> optimize it better as well. Unless Peter has a legitimate rational why
> using bool in struct is bad, I would keep it as is.
I don't mind too much, but like said, I hate using types without
specified storage, you never really know what the compiler will end up
doing.
--
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