[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071206.192249.193354742.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:22:49 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se
Cc: xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, akpm@...l.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch] net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c: Some small improvements
From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:37:46 +0100
> David Miller wrote:
> > But this time I'll just let you know up front that I
> > don't see much value in this patch. It is not a clear
> > improvement to replace int's with bool's in my mind and
> > the other changes are just whitespace changes.
> >
> Is it not an improvement to distinct booleans from actual values? Do you
> use integers for ASCII characters too? It can also avoid some potential
> bugs like the 'if (i == TRUE)'...
> What is wrong with 'size_t' (since it is unsigned, compared to (some)
> 'int')?
When you say "int found;" is there any doubt in your mind that
this integer is going to hold a 1 or a 0 depending upon whether
we "found" something?
That's the problem I have with these kinds of patches, they do
not increase clarity, it's just pure mindless edits.
In new code, fine, use booleans if you want.
I would even accept that it helps to change to boolean for
arguments to functions that are global in scope.
But not for function local variables in cases like this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists