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 06:02:07 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc:	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, 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

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/