linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm3 2/2] fs/xfs: Converting into generic boolean

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:24:41 +0200
From:	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
To:	Nathan Scott <nathans@....com>
CC:	akpm@...l.org, xfs-masters@....sgi.com, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm3 2/2] fs/xfs: Converting into generic boolean

Nathan Scott wrote:

>On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:21:13PM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>  
>
>>From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
>>
>>Converting:
>>'B_FALSE' into 'false'
>>'B_TRUE'  into 'true'
>>'boolean_t' into 'bool'
>>    
>>
>
>Hmm, so your bool is better than the next guys bool[ean[_t]]? :)
>  
>
Well yes, because it is not "mine". ;)
It is, after all, just a typedef of the C99 _Bool-type.

>Seems like it'll be a few more days until the next cleanup patch
>to remove _that_, so we shouldn't go that path.
>
A generic boolean to an integer? And if Andrew toss that patch, this one 
will follow.
So what is wrong with this path?

>                                                 Since we do use
>the current boolean_t somewhat inconsistently in XFS, I'd say we
>should just toss the thing and use int.
>  
>
If _that_ is the problem, I am happy to help. Did not want to touch more 
then the already defined "booleans", because it seemed to scare some people.
After all, what interest me next most to a generic boolean, is using 
booleans when it obviously is a boolean.

>I took the earlier patch and completed it, switching over to int
>use in place of boolean_t in the few places it used - I'll merge
>that at some point, when its had enough testing.
>  
>
Is that set in stone? Or is there a chance to (in my opinion) improve 
the readability, by setting the variables to their real type.

>cheers.
>  
>
best regards


-- 
VGER BF report: H 0.117186
-
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/