From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 05 Sep 2006 16:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id k85NFEDW028040 for ; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:15:25 -0700 Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 09:14:08 +1000 From: Nathan Scott Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm3 2/2] fs/xfs: Converting into generic boolean Message-ID: <20060906091407.M3365803@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> References: <44F833C9.1000208@student.ltu.se> <20060904150241.I3335706@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <44FBFEE9.4010201@student.ltu.se> <20060905130557.A3334712@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <44FD71C6.20006@student.ltu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44FD71C6.20006@student.ltu.se>; from ricknu-0@student.ltu.se on Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 02:47:02PM +0200 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Richard Knutsson Cc: akpm@osdl.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 02:47:02PM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: > Just the notion: "your" guys was the ones to make those to boolean(_t), Sort of, we actually inherited that type from IRIX where it is defined in . > and now you seem to want to patch them away because I tried to make them > more general. Nah, I just don't see the value either way, and see it as another code churn exercise. > So, is the: > B_FALSE -> false > B_TRUE -> true > ok by you? Personally, no. Thats code churn with no value IMO. > >"int needflush;" is just as readable (some would argue moreso) as > >"bool needflush;" and thats pretty much the level of use in XFS - > > > How are you sure "needflush" is, for example, not a counter? Well, that would be named "flushcount" or some such thing. And you would be able to tell that it was a counter by the way its used in the surrounding code. This discussion really isn't going anywhere useful; I think you need to accept that not everyone sees value in a boolean type. :) cheers. -- Nathan