From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6787EC38A2A for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C00A21835 for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726948AbgEGRa1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2020 13:30:27 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:58740 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726470AbgEGRa1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2020 13:30:27 -0400 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D510E20663; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:30:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 13:30:24 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Valentin Schneider Cc: Jason Yan , mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in voluntary_active_balance() Message-ID: <20200507133024.18dbe349@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20200507132828.1af39b80@gandalf.local.home> References: <20200507110625.37254-1-yanaijie@huawei.com> <20200507132828.1af39b80@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 7 May 2020 13:28:28 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > > It's perfectly safe to return 0/1 in a boolean function; that said seeing > > as this is the second attempt at "fixing" this I'm tempted to say we should > > pick it up... > > > > Actually, I disagree. We should push back on the check to not warn on 0/1 > of boolean. Why is this a warning? If anything, we can teach people to try to understand their fixes, to see if something is really a fix or not. Blindly accepting changes like this, is no different than blindly submitting patches because some tool says its an issue. -- Steve