On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 08:17:15PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 18:43:22 -0500, John de la Garza said:

quoted

On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 11:20:29PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:

quoted

On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 18:54:00 -0500, John de la Garza said:

quoted

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
};

Note that's an *anonynous* enum, which defines the two values, but
it *doesn't* define an enum type that can be used to force type safety.

No, if you're converting a variable from int to bool, the *important* line is
from include/linux/types.h:

typedef _Bool                   bool;

which ensures more type safety than the enum does.

right, I see that now

so _Bool is a defined by the compiler and typedefed to bool