linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in voluntary_active

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: <20200507133024.18dbe349@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 13:30:24 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Return true,false in
 voluntary_active_balance()

On Thu, 7 May 2020 13:28:28 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> > It's perfectly safe to return 0/1 in a boolean function; that said seeing
> > as this is the second attempt at "fixing" this I'm tempted to say we should
> > pick it up...
> >   
> 
> Actually, I disagree. We should push back on the check to not warn on 0/1
> of boolean. Why is this a warning?

If anything, we can teach people to try to understand their fixes, to see
if something is really a fix or not. Blindly accepting changes like this,
is no different than blindly submitting patches because some tool says its
an issue.

-- Steve