On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:42:40PM +0800, Jiri Benc wrote: > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 21:52:41 +0800, Yang, Yi wrote: > > > + return ((ret != 0) ? false : true); > > > > But I don't think this is a problematic line from my understanding, > > Why not: > > return ((ret != 0 == true) ? false : true) == true; > > ? > > Sigh. This is equal to: > > return !ret; > > which you should use.
Ok, got it, I'll use "return !ret;", real programming art :-), I also saw !!(condition), personally its readability is not good, typical kernel style :-)
