| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:11:32 -0500 From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...tin.ibm.com> To: Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se> 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 On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:42 +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote: > 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? ;) I just see this as an opportunity to make jfs more closely fit the coding style of the mainline kernel. > But seriously, what is gained by removing them, other then less > understandable code? (Not talking about FALSE -> 0, but boolean_t -> int) I don't feel strongly one way or another about the use of boolean_t, but under fs/, the only code that uses that type is in fs/jfs and fs/xfs, which are both ported from other operating systems. Using ints for boolean values does seem to be the accepted practice in the kernel. > I can understand if authors disprove making an integer into a boolean, > but here it already were booleans. > But hey, you are the maintainer ;) I could be persuaded to leave the declarations as boolean_t or even making them bool, but right now I'm leaning toward making them int for consistency. Shaggy -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists