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:	Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:57:27 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <>
To:	"Takashi Sato" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:33:58 +0900
"Takashi Sato" <> wrote:

> >> - struct super_block *sb = freeze_bdev(mp->m_super->s_bdev);
> >> + struct super_block *sb = freeze_bdev(mp->m_super->s_bdev, 0);
> >
> > Using NULL here is clearer and will, I expect, avoid a sparse warning.
> I checked it but I couldn't find a sparse warning in xfs_fsops.c.
> Can you tell me how to use NULL?

	struct super_block *sb = freeze_bdev(mp->m_super->s_bdev, NULL);


It's much better to use NULL here rather than literal zero because the
reader of this code can then say "ah-hah, we're passing in a pointer". 
Whereas plain old "0" could be a pointer or a scalar.

We should always use NULL to represent a null pointer in the kernel. 
The one acceptable exception is when testing for nullness:

	if (ptr1)
		if (!ptr2)

Often people will use

	if (ptr1 != NULL)
		if (ptr2 == NULL)

in this case as well.  (I prefer the shorter version personally, but
either is OK).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists