From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/16] KVM: MMU: return bool in __rmap_write_protect
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:54:01 +0900
Message-ID: <20120417005401.0b9ae3a75fdc73a39f154c30@gmail.com>
References: <4F87FA69.5060106@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<4F87FBC1.5010907@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20120414110031.38450bebfe712215f01d529f@gmail.com>
	<4F8AB02A.9020601@redhat.com>
	<20120416231455.f978b3ac9fb995cfce2853ae@gmail.com>
	<4F8C2C90.6030703@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F8C2C90.6030703@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:28:32 +0300
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:

> > But the real question is whether there is any point in re-writing completely
> > correct C code: there are tons of int like this in the kernel code.
> >
> > __rmap_write_protect() was introduced recently, so if this conversion is
> > really worthwhile, I should have been told to use bool at that time, no?
> 
> It's up to developer and maintainer preference.  I like bool since it
> documents the usage and is safer, but sometimes I miss it on review.

OK.

Thank you for your explanation!

	Takuya