From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761209AbZFPWST (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:18:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756430AbZFPWSJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:18:09 -0400 Received: from outbound-mail-302.bluehost.com ([67.222.53.9]:55043 "HELO outbound-mail-302.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755408AbZFPWSI (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:18:08 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=jNPfLoHl41jhpFwtzUC2tQHbtXOjFFeLxvUJ3ARASkRWvreitBs5Kj8EZQHSKJj5BE7kkWmSu70eD84BTz5EGG9YuwvR9LAwr2tXhug2kKevwUCN1Zx7Xtb4WFKQ5k7r; Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:18:04 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Frans Pop Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] IDE: consistently use type bool for wake enable variable Message-ID: <20090616151804.0ea89caa@jbarnes-g45> In-Reply-To: <200906170016.16716.elendil@planet.nl> References: <20090616142554.7bce02f6@jbarnes-g45> <200906170016.16716.elendil@planet.nl> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (GTK+ 2.16.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.111.28.251 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:16:15 +0200 Frans Pop wrote: > IDE: consistently use type bool for wake enable parameter > > Other functions use type bool, so use that for pci_enable_wake as > well. > > Signed-off-by: Frans Pop > --- > > Hi Jesse, > > I've had this trivial patch sitting in my local branch for some time. > Please consider including. Yep, looks reasonable. Rafael I assume there's no objection here? Thanks, -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center