lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 29 Nov 2007 05:49:09 +0100
FromRichard Knutsson <>
SubjectRe: [RFC] kmemcheck: trap uses of uninitialized memory (v2)
Vegard Nossum wrote:
> Hi,>> On Nov 28, 2007 7:51 AM, Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@student.ltu.se> wrote:
> 
>> Vegard Nossum wrote:>> >>> +static int>>> >> Not 'static bool'?>> >>> +page_is_tracked(struct page *page)>>> >> Why not returning 'false' and 'true'?>> 
>
> Sorry, I am not used to using bool in C :-) I will change this if bool
> is preferred in kernel code.
>
> 
Well, why not use them since we have them (C99 standard and over a year 
in the kernel). ;)
What is "preferred" in a group of a few thousands, is hard to say, but I 
believe it is the way to go. The only "resistance" to it I know, is "it 
is not a C idiom". A quite illogical statement, at best. However, the 
0/1 vs false/true is just a preference. (I like false/true, since I also 
say "true AND false = false" for example... (NOT true = false, makes 
sense to me, NOT 1 = 0 seem strange, why can't it be 2, or -1 ;) ))
>>> +static unsigned int>>> +opcode_get_size(const uint8_t *opcode)>>> >> Are we not using 'u8' in the kernel?>> >> Actually, I don't see any reason to use u8 when uint8_t is already
> standard and used in other places in the kernel.> 
I believe I have heard they can be a problem in some situations. It also 
have the benefit of uniforming the kernel-code.

cu
Richard Knutsson

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-11-29 06:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2008