"bool" can be problematic as it isn't totally portable. It is usually implemented as a macro.
That’s why ACPICA doesn't use it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 5:33 AM > To: Quentin Lambert > Cc: Zhang, Rui; Moore, Robert; Zheng, Lv; Wysocki, Rafael J; Len Brown; > Shaohua Li; [email protected]; [email protected]; linux- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] int to bool conversion > > On Monday, January 26, 2015 09:30:55 AM Quentin Lambert wrote: > > Sorry for the delay in answering .... > > > > On 22/01/2015 17:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 09:49:41 AM Quentin Lambert wrote: > > >> These patches convert local variables from int to bool when relevant. > > > And what exactly is the need for that? Does that fix any functional > problems? > > > > > > > > It doesn't fix any functional problem. The point of this patch is to > > increase the code readability by lifting some of the ambiguities that > > appear when using an integer variable as boolean. > > > > My understanding is that by explicitly using a boolean declaration > > when it is relevant it clearly informs the reader that the variable is > > going to represent a binary state. Moreover, using the keywords true > > and false help indicate that the variable will not be involved in any > > computation other than boolean arithmetic. > > Well, in the new code, yes. The existing code is a different matter > though and it doesn't actually hurt if you leave the ints where they are, > so there's no reason to make those changes. > > If you change old code and the change is not trivial (eg. fixes of white > space or comments, or kernel messages etc.) and someone enounters a bug > that may be related to it, they will have to go through your changes to > see if that's not the source of the bug. That's not really productive. > > > -- > I speak only for myself. > Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
