David Miller wrote:
From: Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
t
From: Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 chang
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 03:37:46PM +0100, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>
> 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 u
David Miller wrote:
From: WANG Cong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:01:23 +0800
This patch contains the following changes.
- Use 'bool' instead of 'int' for booleans.
- Use 'size_t' instead of 'int' for 'sizeof' return value.
- Some style fixes.
Cc: Her
From: WANG Cong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:01:23 +0800
>
> This patch contains the following changes.
>
> - Use 'bool' instead of 'int' for booleans.
> - Use 'size_t' instead of 'int' for 'sizeof' return value.
> - Some style fixes.
>
> Cc: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL
This patch contains the following changes.
- Use 'bool' instead of 'int' for booleans.
- Use 'size_t' instead of 'int' for 'sizeof' return value.
- Some style fixes.
Cc: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <[EMAIL P
