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]

Message-ID: <56F4EF87.4000003@nod.at>
Date:	Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:57:59 +0100
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Yaowei Bai <baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com>,
	Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn>
Cc:	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

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.

Thanks,
//richard