linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] drivers/mtd: make several functions return bool

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:	Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:41:07 +0800
From:	Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn>, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	computersforpeace@...il.com, boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] drivers/mtd: make several functions return bool

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 08:57:59AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 25.03.2016 um 07:31 schrieb Yaowei Bai:
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:54:51AM +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> >> ccing: Brian and Richard
> >>
> >> Hi Yao,
> >>     Is that really necessary? I am not sure how much benefit we can
> >> achieve from this change.
> >> Could you explain more?
> > 
> > Yes, according to these functions' name, a boolean return value is more
> > suitable and matchable.
> > 
> > Also personally think this change maybe benfit function's return value 
> > storage in the stack when called on certain architectures.
> 
> On which archs? And what exactly is the benefit?
> I agree that bool might be a better choice for new functions
> but here you're touching existing and working(!) code.
> The only outcome is git history pollution that makes git blame
> less efficient.

Working code doesn't mean perfect code. :-)

I still think this's a helpful change even though it's small, but
you make the decision to merge or drop it.

> 
> Thanks,
> //richard
>