[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1812031016330.7942@hadrien>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:20:42 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Wen Yang <wen.yang99@....com.cn>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhong.weidong@....com.cn,
mingo@...hat.com, will.deacon@....com, Julia.Lawall@...6.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locktorture: Fix assignment of boolean variables
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:35:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 12:37:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 04:31:49PM +0800, Wen Yang wrote:
> > > > Fix the following warnings reported by coccinelle:
> > > >
> > > > kernel/locking/locktorture.c:703:6-10: WARNING: Assignment of bool to 0/1
>
> Not to mention that WARN is gramatically incorrect. We're not assigning
> 'bool' to 0/1 but the other way around.
>
> What crap..
>
> > So I strongly disagree with this. Anybody that has trouble with 0/1 vs
> > false/true needs to stay the heck away from C.
> >
> > I would suggest we delete that stupid coccinelle scripts that generates
> > these pointless warns.
Personally, I would prefer that assignments involving boolean variables
use true or false. It seems more readable. Potentially better for tools
as well. But if the community really prefers 0 and 1, then the test can
be deleted.
julia
Powered by blists - more mailing lists