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=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 1F11AC38A24 for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:55:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB86A20A8B for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:55:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727993AbgEGRzi (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2020 13:55:38 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0060.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.60]:42220 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726320AbgEGRzh (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2020 13:55:37 -0400 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8625B180184E5; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:55:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: army02_139717869533e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2081 Received: from XPS-9350.home (unknown [47.151.136.130]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 7 May 2020 17:55:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in voluntary_active_balance() From: Joe Perches To: Steven Rostedt , 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 Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 10:55:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200507133024.18dbe349@gandalf.local.home> References: <20200507110625.37254-1-yanaijie@huawei.com> <20200507132828.1af39b80@gandalf.local.home> <20200507133024.18dbe349@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.1-2 MIME-Version: 1.0 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, 2020-05-07 at 13:30 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > 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. Most people seem to prefer bool returns with apparent bool constants even though true and false are enumerator constants (int) of 1 and 0 in the kernel. from include/linux/stddef.h: enum { false = 0, true = 1 };