[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181203080039.GA25965@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 09:00:39 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, paulmck@...ux.ibm.com,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhong.weidong@....com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locktorture: Fix assignment of boolean variables
* Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn> wrote:
> Fix the following warnings reported by coccinelle:
>
> kernel/locking/locktorture.c:703:6-10: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> kernel/locking/locktorture.c:918:2-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> kernel/locking/locktorture.c:949:3-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> kernel/locking/locktorture.c:682:2-19: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> kernel/locking/locktorture.c:688:2-19: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> kernel/locking/locktorture.c:648:2-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
> kernel/locking/locktorture.c:654:2-20: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
>
> This patch also makes the code more readable.
No, it doesn't make the code more readable!
0/1 patterns are blatantly obvious and shorter to both write and read
than false/true text.
NAK.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists