linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: uniphier[-f]: fix bool logic calculation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK7LNAS7DaG-Ath1-qzA3C6WLNV=YiSCjgDnsOH4-eS0yt04Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2016 00:39:21 +0900
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: uniphier[-f]: fix bool logic calculation

Hi Joe,


2016-12-21 2:55 GMT+09:00 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>:
> On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 01:20 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I have not got any comment, but does this seem
>> a right thing to do?
>
>> This code is working, but it should not depend on how "bool" is
>> typedef'ed, or the bit position of I2C_M_RD.
>
> <shrug>
>
> I think bool can be guaranteed to be _Bool.
>
> So a change not necessary as the original code
> has a c90 guarantee of the same result.
>
> 6.3.1.2 Boolean type
> 1
> When any scalar value is converted to _Bool, the result is 0 if the value compares equal
> to 0; otherwise, the result is 1.
>

Thanks for your comments!

_Bool works very nicely.

I have seen some (not very nice) projects
that define like "typedef char bool;"

So, I was wondering if I should write code
that works regardless how bool is defined.
Just my two cents.

-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada