On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 06:43:22PM -0500, John de la Garza wrote:
On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 11:20:29PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 18:54:00 -0500, John de la Garza said:
It should not be assumed that true will always be 1 as defined in include/linux/stddef.h, right?
No, I mean use an actual 'bool' type rather than 'int'. Consider this from kernel/softirq.c:
yes, bool has two possible values true and false
from include/linux/stddef.h: enum { false = 0, true = 1 };
I assume it is a bad idea to depend on true being 1, right? I mean, I should assume that true could be changed to any non 0 value in the future, right?
Why would that matter? Just always test for "true" and "false" and you will be fine. greg k-h