[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f0e6f50e910238366b1d8f398c91d3066baac7cf.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 10:55:33 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc: Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in
voluntary_active_balance()
On Thu, 2020-05-07 at 13:30 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 13:28:28 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > > It's perfectly safe to return 0/1 in a boolean function; that said seeing
> > > as this is the second attempt at "fixing" this I'm tempted to say we should
> > > pick it up...
> > >
> >
> > Actually, I disagree. We should push back on the check to not warn on 0/1
> > of boolean. Why is this a warning?
>
> If anything, we can teach people to try to understand their fixes, to see
> if something is really a fix or not. Blindly accepting changes like this,
> is no different than blindly submitting patches because some tool says its
> an issue.
<shrug>
Most people seem to prefer bool returns with apparent bool constants
even though true and false are enumerator constants (int) of 1 and 0
in the kernel.
from include/linux/stddef.h:
enum {
false = 0,
true = 1
};
Powered by blists - more mailing lists