linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] WARN_ONCE(): use bool for boolean flag

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: <4ABF8B30.5050801@cesarb.net>
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/