[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200507144534.09abd685@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 14:45:34 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
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, 07 May 2020 10:55:33 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > 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
> };
Sure, do that for new code, but we don't need these patches popping up for
current code. That is, it's a preference not a bug.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists