linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] trivial treewide: Convert dev_set_uevent

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BLUPR02MB1683E6A75F29015CBCAD804D81E50@BLUPR02MB1683.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:41:47 +0000
From:   Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Sebastian Ott <sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Jiri Kosina <trivial@...nel.org>
CC:     Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trivial treewide: Convert dev_set_uevent_suppress
 argument to bool

On 09/01/16 17:51, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 00:47 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 09/01/16 13:11, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>
>>> Assigning an int to a bitfield:1 can lose precision.
>>> Change the caller argument uses from 1/0 to true/false.
>> Hello Joe,
>
> Hi Bart.
>
>> Can you clarify how assigning 0 or 1 to a one-bit bitfield can cause a
>> loss of precision?
>
> There are no existing defects.
>
> Using 1/0 is not a loss of precision, it's just
> changing to use bool avoids potential errors and
> promotes consistency.
>
> Other uses of this function already use true/false.

Hello Joe,

In the patch description you refer to loss of precision. However, your 
patch does not address any loss of precision issues. So I think that the 
patch description is misleading and could be made more clear.

Bart.