From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: Conversion to generic boolean Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:45:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20060829114502.GD4076@infradead.org> References: <44EFBEFA.2010707@student.ltu.se> <20060828093202.GC8980@infradead.org> <20060828171804.09c01846.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:36778 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964950AbWH2Lp2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:45:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060828171804.09c01846.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Richard Knutsson , James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:18:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > At present we have >50 different definitions of TRUE and gawd knows how > many private implementations of various flavours of bool. > > In that context, Richard's approach of giving the kernel a single > implementation of bool/true/false and then converting things over to use it > makes sense. The other approach would be to go through and nuke the lot, > convert them to open-coded 0/1. > > I'm not particularly fussed either way, really. But the present situation > is nuts. Let's start to kill all those utterly silly if (x == true) and if (x == false) into if (x) and if (!x) and pospone the type decision. Adding a bool type only makes sense if we have any kind of static typechecking that no one ever assign an invalid type to it.