From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754822AbXLGPju (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:39:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752356AbXLGPjk (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:39:40 -0500 Received: from gepetto.dc.ltu.se ([130.240.42.40]:36282 "EHLO gepetto.dc.ltu.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751390AbXLGPjj (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:39:39 -0500 Message-ID: <475969AB.6040907@student.ltu.se> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:41:31 +0100 From: Richard Knutsson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Miller CC: xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, akpm@osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Patch] net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c: Some small improvements References: <20071206110123.GB2469@hacking> <20071206.031434.179419183.davem@davemloft.net> <4758093A.7010608@student.ltu.se> <20071206.192249.193354742.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20071206.192249.193354742.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > From: Richard Knutsson > Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:37:46 +0100 > > >> David Miller wrote: >> >>> But this time I'll just let you know up front that I >>> don't see much value in this patch. It is not a clear >>> improvement to replace int's with bool's in my mind and >>> the other changes are just whitespace changes. >>> >>> >> Is it not an improvement to distinct booleans from actual values? Do you >> use integers for ASCII characters too? It can also avoid some potential >> bugs like the 'if (i == TRUE)'... >> What is wrong with 'size_t' (since it is unsigned, compared to (some) >> 'int')? >> > > When you say "int found;" is there any doubt in your mind that > this integer is going to hold a 1 or a 0 depending upon whether > we "found" something? > > That's the problem I have with these kinds of patches, they do > not increase clarity, it's just pure mindless edits. > But is there not a good thing if also the compiler knows + names are sometime not as clear as that one? > In new code, fine, use booleans if you want. > > I would even accept that it helps to change to boolean for > arguments to functions that are global in scope. > > But not for function local variables in cases like this. > Oh, I see your point now. Believed it to be yet another 'booleans is not C idiom'. Sorry about the noise Richard Knutsson