On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 03:42:53PM -0200, Thiago Farina wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Mark Brown

quoted text
> > There is no reason to do this, logical values are treated as 0 and 1 in
> > C.  Using false and true is clear and won't cause any difference in
> > code.

quoted text
> In C99 I suppose that is true and legal?

Yes.  C has always used 1 and 0 as the numerical mappings for logical
values, the addition of the keywords did not change them.

quoted text
> >> Maybe like this?
> >> return (ret & info->mask) ? 1: 0;

quoted text
> > No, that's needlessly obfuscated.

quoted text
> Obfuscated? What you mean? It is a driver, and people reading and
> writing a driver would know what it means, no?

Adding the ternery operator just makes the code more noisy for no
benefit.

quoted text
> Would be much simpler if it was just (like done in ab3100.c):

quoted text
> return (ret & info->mask);

Yes, though there's no problem with the current code either.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/