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: <43c41ab4-1771-4b01-853e-08e1689df7f3@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 08:27:35 +0100
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>
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 24. 02. 25, 8:24, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> 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.

Care to explain what exactly it changes?

-- 
js
suse labs