[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1472777516.4176.149.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 17:51:56 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Jiri Kosina <trivial@...nel.org>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trivial treewide: Convert dev_set_uevent_suppress
argument to bool
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 00:47 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 09/01/16 13:11, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > Assigning an int to a bitfield:1 can lose precision.
> > Change the caller argument uses from 1/0 to true/false.
> Hello Joe,
Hi Bart.
> Can you clarify how assigning 0 or 1 to a one-bit bitfield can cause a
> loss of precision?
There are no existing defects.
Using 1/0 is not a loss of precision, it's just
changing to use bool avoids potential errors and
promotes consistency.
Other uses of this function already use true/false.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists