[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <81cc7b9e-8d3d-d529-7459-1d8a1e3baa65@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:32:32 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To: baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] make some functions return bool
On 12/12/2017 06:14 PM, Yaowei Bai wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 09:20:56AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 12/11/2017 11:21 PM, Yaowei Bai wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 09:50:03PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, Yaowei Bai wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This patchset makes some *_is_* like functions return bool because
>>>>> these functions only use true or false as their return values.
>>>>>
>>>>> No functional changes.
>>
>> I agree with the idea that predicate-like functions are boolean functions
>> and should return bool.
>
> Then you can use Acked-by to support me. :)
Sure, but I didn't keep the patch emails.
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
>> Whether you can get someone to merge the patches is a different subject.
>
> The kernel development is not just developing hard codes. The talented
> guys develop new features and bugfixes, while the other ones do cleanups
> for them. These two parts of work are all welcome and should be
> accepted by our community.
>
>>
>>>> I think the concern about this type of patchset in the past is that it is
>>>> unnecessary churn and makes it more time consuming to research git history
>>>> without any significant improvement.
>>>
>>> While, relative to a modern computer with superb computional power, i
>>> think the additional time to search git history is negligable and this
>>> type of patchset is also a good practice for the kernel beginner guys.
>>> :)
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~Randy
--
~Randy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists