From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: greg@kroah.com (Greg KH)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 16:50:58 -0800
Subject: ternary vs double exclamation
In-Reply-To: <20150104234321.GA9214@vega.jjdev.com>
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>
	<20150104234321.GA9214@vega.jjdev.com>
Message-ID: <20150105005058.GA15400@kroah.com>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 06:43:22PM -0500, John de la Garza wrote:
> 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?

Why would that matter?  Just always test for "true" and "false" and you
will be fine.

greg k-h