linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless update of refcount

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130831030633.28455.qmail@science.horizon.com>
Date:	30 Aug 2013 23:06:33 -0400
From:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	linux@...izon.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	waiman.long@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless update of refcount

Just noticing that you are adding several functions that return a boolean
value as an int.  And a "gotref" local variable.

Is that just not wanting to bother with thse newfangled C99 innovations,
or do you dislike the "bool" type for some reason?

Even if it doesn't change the code in the slightest, I like to declare
things with the bool type for documentation.  I can see avoiding code
churn, but this is all new code, so I thought I'd ask.

(FWIW, stdbool.h was in gcc 3.2, which README says is the minimum
supported version, although that's probably outdated information.)
--
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/