linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] int to bool conversion

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:32:06 -0700
From:	Louis Langholtz <lou_langholtz@...com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] int to bool conversion

While it may not be productive to perturb seemingly working
code (as Rafael argues), it may also not be productive to
have decreased code readability (as Quentin suggests).

Personally I prefer readability enhancements over worrying
about possibly breaking working code. I don't want to start
a flame war so I won't go into arguing this as a better
position. I'd just like to thank Quentin for his efforts to
identify boolean uses of variables. It's something I'm
interested in as well and have been working on in a branch
of my own git repository.

Quentin if you want to work on this together at all, that'd
be great. Please contact me directly as I'm not subscribed to
the LKML. As for the original semantic patch code, it's
unlikely that it would be safe to not exclude variables that
are passed by address (and seemingly the ampersand operator
applied on x - as in '&x' - should be a part of the exclusion
set).

Lou
--
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/