Re: [PATCH V2] rcu: change function declaration to bool

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:28:30AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015 17:10:59 +0200
> Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
> 
> > rcu_cpu_has_callbacks() is declared int but is actually returning bool and
> > and as the function description states " * Return true if the specified 
> > CPU has any callback....", this probably should be a bool. All (3) 
> > call-sites currently treat it as bool so the declaration.
> > 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
> > ---
> > 
> > V2: fixed up commit message and tool infos as requested by 
> >     Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
> > 
> > Type-checking coccinelle spatches are being used to locate type 
> > mismatches between function signatures and return values. 
> > ./kernel/rcu/tree.c:3538 WARNING: return of wrong type
> >                     int != bool, 
> > 
> > Patch was compile tested with x86_64_defconfig (implies CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y)
> > 
> > Patch is against 4.1-rc3 (localversion-next is -next-20150511)
> 
> I think what Josh was saying is that all the above except for the "V2"
> should be above the signature. Everything between the "---" and the
> patch gets tossed out when committed into git.
> 
> Giving credit to coccinelle and even what branch and config was used
> for testing is something we want in the git change log history.

Yes, exactly.

- Josh Triplett