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]

Date:   Thu, 07 May 2020 18:52:03 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
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 07/05/20 18:30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.
>

I don't disagree. To play devil's advocate, AFAICT that one coccinelle script
is part of the kernel tree, so some folks may think it worth to reduce the
warnings we get from those.

To give my side of things, this one felt a bit like the
"s/borked/broken/" patches that folks send out because they have a
spellcheck linter, i.e. the change is purely cosmetic. But yeah, I suppose
less gunk to go through via git blame is preferable.

> -- Steve