linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

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: <20111023113422.GD5156@elte.hu>
Date:	Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:34:22 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9


* Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> wrote:

> +#define cputime_zero			((__force cputime_t) 0ULL)
> +#define cputime64_zero			((__force cputime64_t) 0ULL)

Hm, why are these still needed?

This:

		if (*newval == cputime_zero)
			return;

Could be written as the much simpler:

		if (!*newval)
 			return;

with no ill effect that i can see.

Thanks,
	Ingo
--
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/