linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/bootflag: Change some static functions to 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]

Message-ID: <CAFULd4a4qbMiP3dYXDp0_vPapkoi-i-ApOY5pHfKG1h7=vfbbA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 08:24:15 +0100
From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/bootflag: Change some static functions to bool

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 8:18 AM Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 29. 01. 25, 16:47, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > The return values of some functions are of boolean type. Change the
> > type of these function to bool and adjust their return values.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c | 12 ++++++------
> >   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c b/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c
> > index 3fed7ae58b60..4d89a2d80d0f 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/bootflag.c
> > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
> >
> >   int sbf_port __initdata = -1;       /* set via acpi_boot_init() */
> >
> > -static int __init parity(u8 v)
> > +static bool __init parity(u8 v)
> >   {
> >       int x = 0;
> >       int i;
> > @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static int __init parity(u8 v)
> >               v >>= 1;
> >       }
> >
> > -     return x;
> > +     return !!x;
>
> This "!!" is unnecessary and only obfuscates the code, right?

Not really, this idiom is used in place of (x != 0) to change the type
to the return type of the function in a pedantic way.

Uros.