From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: john@jjdev.com (John de la Garza)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:43:22 -0500
Subject: ternary vs double exclamation
In-Reply-To: <37532.1420345229@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
References: <CALD9WKwTq+QRPdWsBo5TeZ9Q-9hDW8cXt2-m5-C3B+6f17Sr8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<170340.1419901208@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	<20150103235359.GA3588@vega.jjdev.com>
	<37532.1420345229@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Message-ID: <20150104234321.GA9214@vega.jjdev.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 11:20:29PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 18:54:00 -0500, John de la Garza said:
> 
> > It should not be assumed that true will always be 1 as defined in
> > include/linux/stddef.h, right?
> 
> No, I mean use an actual 'bool' type rather than 'int'.  Consider this from
> kernel/softirq.c:

yes, bool has two possible values true and false

from include/linux/stddef.h:
enum {
	        false   = 0,
		true	= 1
};


I assume it is a bad idea to depend on true being 1, right?  I mean, I
should assume that true could be changed to any non 0 value in the future,
right?