linux-kernel - Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: Fix bool initialization/comparison

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]

Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:48:24 +0800
From:   Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Ju Hyung Park <qkrwngud825@...il.com>,
        Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>
CC:     "jaegeuk@...nel.org" <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: Fix bool initialization/comparison

On 2017/10/8 3:30, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 23:33 +0900, Ju Hyung Park wrote:
>> Isn't this bogus?
>>
>> "bool" type in Linux kernel is a typedef to "_Bool"
>> and true/false is defined as 1 and 0 by enum at include/linux/stddef.h.
> 
> Bogus?  Well, not really.  It's just a neatening and it's
> identical object code.
> 
> The idea is that true/false is more intelligible than 1/0
> for a human reader.

Yes, that's just cleanup.

Hi Thomas, could you change the commit message a bit?

> 
>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de> wrote:
>>> Bool initializations should use true and false. Bool tests don't need
>>> comparisons.
> []
>>> diff -u -p a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> []
>>> @@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ next:
>>>         bio_page = fio->encrypted_page ? fio->encrypted_page : fio->page;
>>>
>>>         /* set submitted = 1 as a return value */

Comment should be updated too.

Thanks,

>>> -       fio->submitted = 1;
>>> +       fio->submitted = true;
>>>
>>>         inc_page_count(sbi, WB_DATA_TYPE(bio_page));
>>>
> 
> And it's probably better to change the comment too.
> 
> 
> .
>