From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752878AbcAXV1l (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jan 2016 16:27:41 -0500 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:33807 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751723AbcAXV1j (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jan 2016 16:27:39 -0500 Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:27:29 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Chen Gang Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nicolas.iooss_linux@m4x.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: dcache: Use bool return value instead of int Message-ID: <20160124212728.GA17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1452547845-12039-1-git-send-email-chengang@emindsoft.com.cn> <20160111225104.GO17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <5695733C.1010201@emindsoft.com.cn> <20160112222105.GT17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <5696D239.2000605@emindsoft.com.cn> <20160113225446.GU17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <5697C139.7040709@emindsoft.com.cn> <56A53FEF.6020803@emindsoft.com.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56A53FEF.6020803@emindsoft.com.cn> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:19:43AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: > Hello all: > > Is this patch OK? shall I send the other patch based on this one? (the > other patch is v3 trivial patch for include/linux/dcache.h). > > And sorry for replying late: the last week, I was not in Beijing, had to > be busy for analyzing a Linux kernel usb related issue for my company's > customer in Guangzhou (but at last, I guess, it is not kernel issue). Again, do you have _any_ evidence of improved code generation with that patch? Because if you do, I would really like to see it, so I could file bugs against gcc optimizer. Your impression of what _Bool is and what semantics does it have appears to be rather different from that described in C99, but that's a secondary issue - first and foremost, on which .config and with which gcc version do you see improvements from that change?