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 10:55:33 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        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, 2020-05-07 at 13:30 -0400, 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.

<shrug>

Most people seem to prefer bool returns with apparent bool constants
even though true and false are enumerator constants (int) of 1 and 0
in the kernel.

from include/linux/stddef.h:

enum {
	false	= 0,
	true	= 1
};