linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Introduce simple TRUE and FALSE boolean macros.

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, 22 Jan 2007 10:41:58 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Nicholas Miell <nmiell@...cast.net>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linville@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce simple TRUE and FALSE boolean macros.

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 06:02 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> > > Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > > > by adding (temporarily) the definitions of TRUE and FALSE to
> > > > types.h, you should then (theoretically) be able to delete over
> > > > 100 instances of those same macros being *defined* throughout the
> > > > source tree. you're not going to be deleting the hundreds and
> > > > hundreds of *uses* of TRUE and FALSE (not yet, anyway) but, at the
> > > > very least, by adding two lines to types.h, you can delete all
> > > > those redundant *definitions* and make sure that nothing breaks.
> > > > (it shouldn't, of course, but it's always nice to be sure.)
> > >
> > > Doesn't seem very worthwhile, and it legitimises this definition
> > > we're trying to get rid of.
> >
> > hmmmmmmmm ... apparently, you totally missed my use of the important
> > word "temporarily":
> >
> >   $ grep -r "temporary hack" . | wc -l
> >   16
>
> That's a pretty good argument _against_ adding another one :)  I
> wonder how old those "temporary hacks" are (the ones you missed as
> well).
>
> To make TRUE/FALSE go away, you or someone will have to visit them
> all, which will take time.  Why add an intermediate step where you
> or others can end up getting interrupted (indefinitely), leaving the
> "temporary" definition lying around for folks to use?

as opposed to the 100+ *other* definitions currently cluttering up the
tree, which this patch would allow to be deleted *immediately*.

forget it.  i can see this argument is going nowhere and that, six
months from now, some poor sucker is going to post, asking, "hey, you
know all these TRUE/FALSE things?  wouldn't it be great if we could,
you know, clean those up?  whaddya say?"

and groundhog day will begin all over again ...

rday
-
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/