linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/8] kernel/trace: report_latency in trace

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:	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:43:30 +0800
From:	Yaowei Bai <bywxiaobai@....com>
To:	rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/8] kernel/trace: report_latency in trace_irqsoff.c can be boolean

This patch makes report_latency return bool due to this
particular function only using either one or zero as its
return value.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Yaowei Bai <bywxiaobai@....com>
---
 kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c b/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
index 8523ea3..ab161bf 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c
@@ -295,16 +295,16 @@ static void irqsoff_print_header(struct seq_file *s)
 /*
  * Should this new latency be reported/recorded?
  */
-static int report_latency(struct trace_array *tr, cycle_t delta)
+static bool report_latency(struct trace_array *tr, cycle_t delta)
 {
 	if (tracing_thresh) {
 		if (delta < tracing_thresh)
-			return 0;
+			return false;
 	} else {
 		if (delta <= tr->max_latency)
-			return 0;
+			return false;
 	}
-	return 1;
+	return true;
 }
 
 static void
-- 
1.9.1


--
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/