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: <109fc6a3-0a7f-4439-8f66-48987809d333@p183>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 21:41:12 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] CodingStyle: recommend static_assert/_Static_assert

On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 08:21:01AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?

If I do source code first, some people or checkpatch.pl will say code is
not conformant!

I want to codify rules so my patches don't rejected due to silly
reasons, due to the rules which don't make sense.

> That's just asking for major churn for no good reason...

Reason is there.

static_assert() is better because it is in the standard, and
Linux convention of inverting condition never made any sense.

> Sorry, but this series makes no sense to me.