linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 0/4] int to bool conversion

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: <94F2FBAB4432B54E8AACC7DFDE6C92E37D27FE3F@ORSMSX112.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:09:28 +0000
From:	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@...il.com>
CC:	"Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	"Zheng, Lv" <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
	"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...ica.org" <devel@...ica.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/4] int to bool conversion

"bool" can be problematic as it isn't totally portable. It is usually implemented as a macro.

That’s why ACPICA doesn't use it.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@...ysocki.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 5:33 AM
> To: Quentin Lambert
> Cc: Zhang, Rui; Moore, Robert; Zheng, Lv; Wysocki, Rafael J; Len Brown;
> Shaohua Li; linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org; devel@...ica.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] int to bool conversion
> 
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 09:30:55 AM Quentin Lambert wrote:
> > Sorry for the delay in answering ....
> >
> > On 22/01/2015 17:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 09:49:41 AM Quentin Lambert wrote:
> > >> These patches convert local variables from int to bool when relevant.
> > > And what exactly is the need for that?  Does that fix any functional
> problems?
> > >
> > >
> > It doesn't fix any functional problem. The point of this patch is to
> > increase the code readability by lifting some of the ambiguities that
> > appear when using an integer variable as boolean.
> >
> > My understanding is that by explicitly using a boolean declaration
> > when it is relevant it clearly informs the reader that the variable is
> > going to represent a binary state. Moreover, using the keywords true
> > and false help indicate that the variable will not be involved in any
> > computation other than boolean arithmetic.
> 
> Well, in the new code, yes.  The existing code is a different matter
> though and it doesn't actually hurt if you leave the ints where they are,
> so there's no reason to make those changes.
> 
> If you change old code and the change is not trivial (eg. fixes of white
> space or comments, or kernel messages etc.) and someone enounters a bug
> that may be related to it, they will have to go through your changes to
> see if that's not the source of the bug.  That's not really productive.
> 
> 
> --
> I speak only for myself.
> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.