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: <67544c34-2c6f-43d3-b429-c8752f57a7e6@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 07:31:37 +0100
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 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, 19:58, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So this CodingStyle entry is a red herring, and the !! is absolutely
> used in the kernel

Sure, for intended conversion to either 0 or 1.

> as an explicit marker of intentional type conversion
> to bool.

With this in mind, you would have to write "if (!!x)" everywhere.

I don't want such constructions in code I maintain. (Nor for return 
values.) But this is not code I maintain (obviously), so your call after 
all.

thanks,
-- 
js
suse labs