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

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: <1254078186.20648.531.camel@desktop>
Date:	Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:03:06 -0700
From:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To:	Cesar Eduardo Barros <cesarb@...arb.net>
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 condition

On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 15:55 -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> Daniel Walker escreveu:
> > On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 15:25 -0300, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote:
> >> -               int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition);                      \
> >> +               bool __ret_warn_on = (condition);                       \
> > 
> > Did you try it without removing the "!!" ? In my original email I tested
> > the path of least resistance, and I left the "!!" in there..
> 
> Just tried, same result (it seems gcc can easily see past the double 
> negation).

Ok, I'm not sure it's worth it then.. I'd prefer to move forward and
assume newer compilers, but most kernel hackers use older compilers ..
It's a pretty big size increase too..

Daniel

--
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/