linux-kernel - Re: Complaint about return code convention in queue

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:36:52 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: Complaint about return code convention in queue_work() etc.

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> >> Recently introduced "bool".
> >
> >I haven't seen the new definition of "bool", but it can't possibly provide 
> >a strong distinction between integers and booleans.  That is, if x is 
> >declared as an integer rather than as a bool, the compiler won't complain 
> >about "if (x) ...".
> 
> Only Java will get you this distinction.

Not true.  It exists in Ruby.  :-)

> I would be comfortable with a 
> feature where conditionals (like if() and ?:) enforce a bool showing 
> up in C/C++, but it's not easy to get into the mainline gcc.

I think relying on an agreed-upon convention is the best we can do.

Alan Stern

-
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/