linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] fs/omfs/inode.c: use ULLONG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20140616205919.5740bea0522043fdfd32e98c@skynet.be>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:59:19 +0200
From:	Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>
To:	Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] fs/omfs/inode.c: use ULLONG_MAX instead of ~0ULL

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:11:42 -0400
Bob Copeland <me@...copeland.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:39:20AM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote:
> > Use more explicit kernel.h definition
> >  	array_size = DIV_ROUND_UP(bitmap_size, sb->s_blocksize);
> >  
> > -	if (sbi->s_bitmap_ino == ~0ULL)
> > +	if (sbi->s_bitmap_ino == ULLONG_MAX)
> >  		goto out;
> 
> So I agree they are the same, but is there a good reason for the
> change?
> 
> Semantically, I think of ~0ULL as "all ones" whereas ULLONG_MAX
> as a maximum of a magnitude comparison, which this is not really.

Well it was meant to clarify code but in this case it doesn't indeed :)

Thanks,
Fabian

> 
> -- 
> Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com
--
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/