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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1156836578.26009.6.camel@imp.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Date:	Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:29:38 +0100
From:	Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@....ac.uk>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	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 Tue, 2006-08-29 at 11:15 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:32:02 +0100
> > Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 05:24:42AM +0200, Richard Knutsson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hello
> >>>
> >>>Just would like to ask if you want patches for:
> >>
> >>Total NACK to any of this boolean ididocy.  I very much hope you didn't
> >>get the impression you actually have a chance to get this merged.
> > 
> > 
> > I was kinda planning on merging it ;)
> > 
> > I can't say that I'm in love with the patches, but they do improve the
> > situation.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Well... we are programming in C here, aren't we ;)

Not sure whether this is meant in favour of one or the other but we are
not programming in C strictly speaking but in C99+gccisms and C99
includes _Bool...

ps. I am definitely in favour of a kernel wide boolean type and will
certainly refuse any patches that remove the NTFS boolean type and
replace it with an open-coded 0/1...  I can only imagine that most other
maintainers who presently define their own boolen types will do the
same...

Best regards,

        Anton
-- 
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @)
Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net
WWW: http://www.linux-ntfs.org/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/

-
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/