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, 7 May 2020 14:45:34 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        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, 07 May 2020 10:55:33 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:

> > 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
> };

Sure, do that for new code, but we don't need these patches popping up for
current code. That is, it's a preference not a bug.

-- Steve