On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 10:50 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Me no understand.
>
> If you take the specific example of
>
> void
> ahd_set_syncrate(struct ahd_softc *ahd, struct ahd_devinfo *devinfo,
>u_int period, u_int offset, u_int ppr_options,
>u_int type, int pau
James Bottomley wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 19:04 +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Given that we now have a standard kernel-wide, c99-friendly way of
expressing true and false, I'd suggest that this
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:42:27 -0600 James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 10:34 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:42:12 -0600 James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 10:34 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:42:12 -0600 James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Given that we now have a standard kernel-wide, c99-friendly way of
> > > expressing true and f
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:42:12 -0600 James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Given that we now have a standard kernel-wide, c99-friendly way of
> > expressing true and false, I'd suggest that this decision can be revisited.
> >
> > Be
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 19:04 +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> >> Given that we now have a standard kernel-wide, c99-friendly way of
> >> expressing true and false, I'd suggest that this decision can be revisi
James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Given that we now have a standard kernel-wide, c99-friendly way of
expressing true and false, I'd suggest that this decision can be revisited.
Because a "true" is significantly more meaningful (and hence readable)
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Given that we now have a standard kernel-wide, c99-friendly way of
> expressing true and false, I'd suggest that this decision can be revisited.
>
> Because a "true" is significantly more meaningful (and hence readable)
> thing than a bare
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:27:42 -0600 James Bottomley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When discussion about TRUE and FALSE came up a long time a go in the
> context of the mid layer we agreed to strip the defined constants out of
> that code and just go with 1 and 0 inline ... because the code was
> pr
James Bottomley wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 18:46 +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
Convert:
FALSE -> false
TRUE -> true
Actually, downcasing true and false in this driver is pretty much a
retrograde step. The reason for their being uppercased is that they
represent constants (and uppe
James Bottomley wrote:
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 18:46 +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
Convert:
FALSE -> false
TRUE -> true
Actually, downcasing true and false in this driver is pretty much a
retrograde step. The reason for their being uppercased is that they
represent constants (and uppe
On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 18:46 +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> Convert:
> FALSE -> false
> TRUE -> true
Actually, downcasing true and false in this driver is pretty much a
retrograde step. The reason for their being uppercased is that they
represent constants (and uppercase is the traditional defi
Convert:
FALSE -> false
TRUE -> true
Signed-off-by: Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Compile-tested with "allyes", "allmod" & "allno" on i386
Whitespace cleaning on affected lines
drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c | 242 +++-
drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old/a
13 matches
Mail list logo
