linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on comparisons to true and false

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:	Wed, 10 Apr 2013 22:14:15 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: Warn on comparisons to true and false

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 03:57:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
 > On Tue, 09 Apr 2013 20:17:14 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
 > 
 > > Comparisons of A to true and false are better written
 > > as A and !A.
 > > 
 > > Bleat a message on use.
 > 
 > hm.  I'm counting around 1,100 instances of "== true" and "== false".
 > 
 > That's a lot of people to shout at.  Is it really worthwhile? 
 > "foo==true" is a bit of a waste of space but I can't say that I find it
 > terribly offensive.

It would be interesting to see how many people have historically screwed 
up and used (!a) when they mean (a) and vice versa, versus spelling
it out longform.  I'd be surprised if the results weren't skewed
in favour of the more verbose form.

	Dave

--
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/