netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Use str_yes_no() and str_no

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: <671d02b9a3601_ac9fd2942c@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 10:54:49 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>, 
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, 
 Gou Hao <gouhao@...ontech.com>, 
 Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>, 
 Abhishek Chauhan <quic_abchauha@...cinc.com>, 
 Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Use str_yes_no() and str_no_yes() helper
 functions

Thorsten Blum wrote:
> Remove hard-coded strings by using the str_yes_no() and str_no_yes()
> helper functions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>
> ---
>  net/core/sock.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 039be95c40cf..132c8d2cda26 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -4140,7 +4140,7 @@ static long sock_prot_memory_allocated(struct proto *proto)
>  static const char *sock_prot_memory_pressure(struct proto *proto)
>  {
>  	return proto->memory_pressure != NULL ?
> -	proto_memory_pressure(proto) ? "yes" : "no" : "NI";
> +		str_yes_no(proto_memory_pressure(proto)) : "NI";
>  }
>  
>  static void proto_seq_printf(struct seq_file *seq, struct proto *proto)
> @@ -4154,7 +4154,7 @@ static void proto_seq_printf(struct seq_file *seq, struct proto *proto)
>  		   sock_prot_memory_allocated(proto),
>  		   sock_prot_memory_pressure(proto),
>  		   proto->max_header,
> -		   proto->slab == NULL ? "no" : "yes",
> +		   str_no_yes(proto->slab == NULL),

Just one opinion, but to reiterate from a previous similar patch:

I find this less readable than the original open code variant.

include/linux/string_choices.h mentions three goals: elegance,
consistency and binary size. The third goal could be an argument for
this change perhaps.

proto->slab : "yes" : "no" would arguably be even easier than the
current form, and a conversion could similarly use str_yes_no.