Re: [KJ] what's the deal with using real "boolean" variables?

[Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>
>   
>> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>     
>>>   is there a consensus on how to use actual C99 boolean variables in
>>> the kernel source? C99 defines the unsigned integer type "_Bool" and,
>>> from that point on, it's all downhill:
>>>
>>>       
>> <snip>
>>     
>>> ./include/linux/types.h:typedef _Bool                   bool;
>>>
>>>       
>> This is the one that was added to replace the rest.
>>     
>
> so the approved way to define boolean variables is with "bool," then?
> ok, that makes sense.  i was asking since that would be the obvious
> return type of something like "is_power_of_2()", of course.
>   
Sounds good
>   
>> There is also 'true' and 'false' defined (enum'ed) in include/linux/stddef.h.
>>
>> A few file-systems, including ntfs, has been converted to this one.
>>     
>
> ah, yes, i see that now.  it might be worth submitting a short patch
> to update "CodingStyle" to mention all of this, if this is in fact the
> consensus.
>   
Linus and Andrew added some functions whom used bool :)

I started on such a patch for "CodingStyle" but never got it to a 
"ready-to-submit"-state.

/Richard Knutsson

_______________________________________________
Kernel-janitors mailing list
Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors