Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 15:15:53 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r283088 - head/sys/ddb Message-ID: <555CEB79.2090406@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <555B5DA7.5000207@FreeBSD.org> References: <201505182227.t4IMRljx078812@svn.freebsd.org> <20150519135341.R2157@besplex.bde.org> <BA474AEC-A0A8-4FF8-8881-397E8280C72F@FreeBSD.org> <2053555.dpIzi23R03@ralph.baldwin.cx> <555B5DA7.5000207@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/19/15 10:58, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > > On 05/19/15 08:45, John Baldwin wrote: >> ... <snip> >> I will disagree with Bruce a bit and put my vote in for replacing >> boolean_t >> with bool where it is used. I do think that logically (if not >> strictly) your >> commit is a type mismatch as TRUE/FALSE is for boolean_t and >> true/false are >> for bool. I agree with Bruce that we probably don't want to use bool >> for >> system calls. However, I think using bool in the kernel itself is ok >> and that >> we should replace boolean_t with bool. >> > I guess it boils down to the dilemma between modernity and common > practice. > > OK, I know the current change can't stay as-is, and even Bruce admits > that boolean_t is a mistake, so I think I will give the bool a try. > FWIW, I have a patch for this[1] but it became rather interesting because on MIPS, bool and int are not interchangeable so I am finding some places where the prototypes and the implementation don't match. It will still take me some time (the tinderbox is really slow) but the result should be cleaner. Pedro. [1] https://people.freebsd.org/~pfg/patches/ddb-bool.diff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?555CEB79.2090406>