linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] make some functions return bool

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:   Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:12:47 +0200
From:   Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
To:     baiyaowei@...s.chinamobile.com,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] make some functions return bool



On 12.12.2017 09:21, Yaowei Bai wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 09:50:03PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, Yaowei Bai wrote:
>>
>>> This patchset makes some *_is_* like functions return bool because
>>> these functions only use true or false as their return values.
>>>
>>> No functional changes.
>>>
>>
>> I think the concern about this type of patchset in the past is that it is 
>> unnecessary churn and makes it more time consuming to research git history 
>> without any significant improvement.
> 
> While, relative to a modern computer with superb computional power, i
> think the additional time to search git history is negligable and this
> type of patchset is also a good practice for the kernel beginner guys.

This is actually a really bad patch for kernel beginners since with
those type of patches it's unlikely they will progress any further. If
you want to do such cleanups why not go to staging but changing kernel
code like that indeed adds unnecessary load to someone debugging a
problem in that area.

> :)
> 
>