Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 13:48:19 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: attilio@FreeBSD.org, Davide Italiano <davide@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-projects@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r247710 - projects/calloutng/sys/kern Message-ID: <20130305094819.GI48089@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130305201211.M902@besplex.bde.org> References: <201303031339.r23DdsBU047737@svn.freebsd.org> <201303041521.06557.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-FndBvLD_fU1ZZ3cGNtChfdtXyuBRt4Z_ci8daS08ZYdOKzg@mail.gmail.com> <201303041620.52100.jhb@freebsd.org> <20130305201211.M902@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 08:43:33PM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote: B> > I think for new code we should prefer C99's bool to boolean_t. B> B> Why? There is no existing practice for this in the kernel. There is some B> in the Linux kernel :-). Why? Because it is standard. What for? To make it more easy for newcomers to start hacking on FreeBSD kernel. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130305094819.GI48089>