linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib: revise list

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: <E1NY2R2-0007nJ-Ic@bigred.inka.de>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:11:16 +0100
From:	Olaf Titz <olaf@...red.inka.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib: revise list_sort() comment

> + * The comparison function @cmp must return a negative value if @a
> + * should sort before @b, and a positive value if @a should sort after
> + * @b. If @a and @b are equivalent, and their original relative
> + * ordering is to be preserved, @cmp should return 0; otherwise, the
> + * return value does not matter.

This "otherwise... does not matter" sounds funny and confusing. Either
read this as "the return value does not matter if it is neither <0, >0
or ==0" or "the return value does not matter if the function wants it
to be ignored". :-)

Just omitting the "otherwise" clause would be clearer.

Olaf
--
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/