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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1472830862.6758.7.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Fri, 02 Sep 2016 08:41:02 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.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 Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:41 +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 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.
> > > 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.
> 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.

I tend towards terse being better than verbose.
The original patch description says

"no change to objects"

What would you suggest?