linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/9] CodingStyle: recommend static_assert/_Static

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: <2025051046-epidemic-broadways-d3cf@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 08:21:01 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] CodingStyle: recommend static_assert/_Static_assert

On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 11:34:27PM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> Linux's BUG_ON is done backwards (condition is inverted).
> But it is a long story.
> 
> However C11/C23 allow to partially transition to what all normal
> programmers are used to, namely assert().
> 
> Deprecate BUILD_BUG_ON, recommend static_assert/_Static_assert.
> And then some day BUG_ON will be flipped as well.

Odd, why are you attempting to make all of these mandates without
actually changing the code itself first?  That's just asking for major
churn for no good reason...

Sorry, but this series makes no sense to me.

greg k-h