From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Knutsson Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:48:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] what's the deal with using real "boolean" variables? Message-Id: <45A4B65D.6000902@student.ltu.se> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org 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: >>> >>> >> >> >>> ./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