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:	Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:56:32 -0300
From:	Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@...arb.net>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WARN_ONCE(): use bool for boolean flag

Daniel Walker escreveu:
> On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 10:53 -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
>>  #define
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(condition)        ({                              \
>> -       static int __warned;                                    \
>> +       static bool __warned;                                   \
>>         int __ret_warn_once = !!(condition);                    \
> 
> Could __ret_warn_once be bool also ? It looks like just another
> conditional variable..

Yes, it could (as long as either it is converted back to int in the 
return of the macro, or all users do not care about the macro's return 
type). However, the justification used for the printk_once patch (and 
this WARN_ONCE patch) does not apply directly anymore, since the code is 
different (to start with, it is not a static variable).

-- 
Cesar Eduardo Barros
cesarb@...arb.net
cesar.barros@...il.com
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ