linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 5)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:42:46 -0700
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org, jeff@...zik.org,
	adobriyan@...il.com, vlobanov@...akeasy.net,
	jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de, getshorty_@...mail.com,
	pwil3058@...pond.net.au, mb@...sch.de, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
	stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de, larsbj@...lik.net
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] A generic boolean (version 5)

Richard wrote:
> Regarding the #define false/true in include/linux/stddef.h: ... there
> seems to be no use for it (other then userspace programs).

We tend to be biased against doing things in kernel headers just for
userspace programs.  I'd suggest either (1) drop the #define false/true's,
or (2) if a compelling userspace need is presented that wins the day,
at least comment the dang defines.

>From the perspective of what's in the current kernel source, this
pair of defines has lost all sense that I can see.  So they need a
justifying comment if they stay.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/