linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] linux/string.h: Introduce streq macro.

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:	Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:52:43 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Thiago Farina <tfransosi@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux/string.h: Introduce streq macro.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:49:49PM -0300, Thiago Farina wrote:
> This macro is arguably more readable than its variants:
> - !strcmp(a, b)
> - strcmp(a, b) == 0
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thiago Farina <tfransosi@...il.com>

I don't think this is not a good idea.

First of all, changing 2800 instances of strcmp will induce a huge
amount of code churn, that will cause patches to break, etc.  And
whether streq() looks better is going to be very much a case of
personal preference.  I'm so used to !strcmp(a, b) that streq(a, b)
would be harder for me, just because I'm not used to it.

So I'd NACK a change like this to any parts of the kernel that I'm
maintaining.  If another people feel that way, it's not clear that
having two different conventions in the kernel would necessarily help...

       	   	     		    	- Ted
--
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/