From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Perches Subject: Re: [PATCH] trivial treewide: Convert dev_set_uevent_suppress argument to bool Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 08:41:02 -0700 Message-ID: <1472830862.6758.7.camel@perches.com> References: <699402ce4c488995b4ddabff0f3b262851cf56ac.1472760613.git.joe@perches.com> <1472777516.4176.149.camel@perches.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Archive: List-Post: To: Bart Van Assche , Jens Axboe , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Sebastian Ott , Peter Oberparleiter , Miklos Szeredi , Jiri Kosina Cc: Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" List-ID: On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:41 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 09/01/16 17:51, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 00:47 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On 09/01/16 13:11, Joe Perches wrote: > > > > Assigning an int to a bitfield:1 can lose precision. > > > > Change the caller argument uses from 1/0 to true/false. > > > Can you clarify how assigning 0 or 1 to a one-bit bitfield can cause a > > > loss of precision? > > There are no existing defects. > > Using 1/0 is not a loss of precision, it's just > > changing to use bool avoids potential errors and > > promotes consistency. > > Other uses of this function already use true/false. > In the patch description you refer to loss of precision. However, your=A0 > patch does not address any loss of precision issues. So I think that the= =A0 > patch description is misleading and could be made more clear. I tend towards terse being better than verbose. The original patch description says "no change to objects" What would you suggest?