Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm2] fs/jfs: Conversion to generic boolean

[Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se>]

Dave Kleikamp wrote:

>On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 01:33 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>  
>
>>Dave Kleikamp wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:42 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Just why is it, that when there is a change to make locally defined 
>>>>booleans into a more generic one, it is converted into integers? ;)
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I just see this as an opportunity to make jfs more closely fit the
>>>coding style of the mainline kernel.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>That is what I am trying to do, making bool as accepted as any other 
>>integer. No more, no less.
>>    
>>
>
>Okay.  My initial impression is that you were just offended by the
>ugliness of having so many different definitions of true, false, and
>boolean types.
>  
>
It isn't a pretty sight, but I think it is more important to let the 
"user" know what kind of value to expect from a function/variable.
Then to prevent errors and letting the compiler know it is a boolean, I 
think a globally typedef of _Bool with defined (enum) true/false is a 
good thing.
Just reminded my of the error-prone locally defined MAX/MIN and the 
global max/min.

>>>>I can understand if authors disprove making an integer into a boolean, 
>>>>but here it already were booleans.
>>>>But hey, you are the maintainer ;)
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I could be persuaded to leave the declarations as boolean_t or even
>>>making them bool, but right now I'm leaning toward making them int for
>>>consistency.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>A root-beer maybe?
>>    
>>
>
>heh
>
>  
>
>>What do you say, can you hold on it for a while (can't be urgent, can 
>>it?) and see how the conversion go. Will take time for it during this 
>>week(end) and if the result is that almost no maintainer wants it, then...
>>Just seem strange to having a boolean function but declaring it integer, 
>>for (in my knowledge) no reason.
>>    
>>
>
>Sounds good to me.  I think I'll go ahead and kill the use of TRUE and
>FALSE, but hold off on the type change for now.
>  
>
To 0/1 or false/true?
Thanks