linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm2] fs/jfs: Conversion to generic boolean

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]

Message-ID: <44F35537.6000308@student.ltu.se>
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:42:31 +0200
From:	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
To:	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...tin.ibm.com>
CC:	akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.18-rc4-mm2] fs/jfs: Conversion to generic boolean

Dave Kleikamp wrote:

>On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 19:37 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
>  
>
>>From: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
>>
>>Conversion of booleans to: generic-boolean.patch (2006-08-23)
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>
>>
>>---
>>
>>Compile-tested
>>
>>
>> inode.c        |    2 +-
>> jfs_dmap.c     |   12 ++++++------
>> jfs_extent.c   |   14 +++++++-------
>> jfs_extent.h   |    4 ++--
>> jfs_imap.c     |   26 +++++++++++++-------------
>> jfs_imap.h     |    4 ++--
>> jfs_metapage.h |    4 ++--
>> jfs_txnmgr.c   |   16 ++++++++--------
>> jfs_types.h    |    4 ----
>> jfs_xtree.c    |    2 +-
>> xattr.c        |   10 +++++-----
>> 11 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>>>original patch removed <<<
>>>>        
>>>>
>
>Richard,
>Here's a version of the patch with completely removes any boolean types
>and constants:
>
>JFS: Conversion of boolean to int
>  
>
<patch removed>

Just why is it, that when there is a change to make locally defined 
booleans into a more generic one, it is converted into integers? ;)
But seriously, what is gained by removing them, other then less 
understandable code? (Not talking about FALSE -> 0, but boolean_t -> int)

I can understand if authors disprove making an integer into a boolean, 
but here it already were booleans.
But hey, you are the maintainer ;)

Richard Knutsson
-
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/