Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/bootflag: Change some static functions to bool

[Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>]

On 24. 02. 25, 8:24, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 8:18 AM Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 29. 01. 25, 16:47, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> The return values of some functions are of boolean type. Change the
>>> type of these function to bool and adjust their return values.
>>>
>>> No functional change intended.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
>>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
>>> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c | 12 ++++++------
>>>    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c b/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c
>>> index 3fed7ae58b60..4d89a2d80d0f 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c
>>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
>>>
>>>    int sbf_port __initdata = -1;       /* set via acpi_boot_init() */
>>>
>>> -static int __init parity(u8 v)
>>> +static bool __init parity(u8 v)
>>>    {
>>>        int x = 0;
>>>        int i;
>>> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static int __init parity(u8 v)
>>>                v >>= 1;
>>>        }
>>>
>>> -     return x;
>>> +     return !!x;
>>
>> This "!!" is unnecessary and only obfuscates the code, right?
> 
> Not really, this idiom is used in place of (x != 0) to change the type
> to the return type of the function in a pedantic way.

Care to explain what exactly it changes?

-- 
js
suse labs