linux-kernel - Re: WARN_ON() which sometimes sucks

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: <18096.949.934194.648312@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2007 13:53:25 +1000
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...ru>, akpm@...l.org,
	torvalds@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Subject: Re: WARN_ON() which sometimes sucks

Al Viro writes:

> Actually, the real problem is different - WTF do we need that typeof
> anyway?
> 	int ret_warn_on = !!(condition);
> 	[same as now]
> will work just fine...

It will mean more code on architectures which have a
conditional-trap-on-nonzero instruction, such as powerpc, since the
compiler will generate instructions to evaluate !!x.  But I don't see
any reason why ret_warn_on couldn't be a long.

Paul.
-
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/