linux-kernel - Re: 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]

Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:45:02 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@...dent.ltu.se>,
	James.Bottomley@...elEye.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Conversion to generic boolean

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:18:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> At present we have >50 different definitions of TRUE and gawd knows how
> many private implementations of various flavours of bool.
> 
> In that context, Richard's approach of giving the kernel a single
> implementation of bool/true/false and then converting things over to use it
> makes sense.  The other approach would be to go through and nuke the lot,
> convert them to open-coded 0/1.
> 
> I'm not particularly fussed either way, really.  But the present situation
> is nuts.

Let's start to kill all those utterly silly if (x == true) and if (x == false)
into if (x) and if (!x) and pospone the type decision.  Adding a bool type
only makes sense if we have any kind of static typechecking that no one
ever assign an invalid type to it.
-
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/