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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 08:59:47 -0700 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 09/02/2016 08:41 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > 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? Hello Joe, How about the following: dev_set_uevent_suppress() expects a boolean as second argument. Make this clear by passing true/false instead of 1/0 as the second argument. Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists