linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/16] KVM: MMU: return bool in __rmap_write

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: <20120417005401.0b9ae3a75fdc73a39f154c30@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:54:01 +0900
From:	Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/16] KVM: MMU: return bool in __rmap_write_protect

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:28:32 +0300
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:

> > But the real question is whether there is any point in re-writing completely
> > correct C code: there are tons of int like this in the kernel code.
> >
> > __rmap_write_protect() was introduced recently, so if this conversion is
> > really worthwhile, I should have been told to use bool at that time, no?
> 
> It's up to developer and maintainer preference.  I like bool since it
> documents the usage and is safer, but sometimes I miss it on review.

OK.

Thank you for your explanation!

	Takuya
--
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/