On 10/09, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2017/10/8 3:30, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 23:33 +0900, Ju Hyung Park wrote: > >> Isn't this bogus? > >> > >> "bool" type in Linux kernel is a typedef to "_Bool" > >> and true/false is defined as 1 and 0 by enum at include/linux/stddef.h. > > > > Bogus? Well, not really. It's just a neatening and it's > > identical object code. > > > > The idea is that true/false is more intelligible than 1/0 > > for a human reader. > > Yes, that's just cleanup. > > Hi Thomas, could you change the commit message a bit? > > > > >> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Thomas Meyer <tho...@m3y3r.de> wrote: > >>> Bool initializations should use true and false. Bool tests don't need > >>> comparisons. > > [] > >>> diff -u -p a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c > > [] > >>> @@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ next: > >>> bio_page = fio->encrypted_page ? fio->encrypted_page : fio->page; > >>> > >>> /* set submitted = 1 as a return value */ > > Comment should be updated too.
I just merged the patch with a fix for this. Thanks, > > Thanks, > > >>> - fio->submitted = 1; > >>> + fio->submitted = true; > >>> > >>> inc_page_count(sbi, WB_DATA_TYPE(bio_page)); > >>> > > > > And it's probably better to change the comment too. > > > > > > . > >
