Re: [RFC] kmemcheck: trap uses of uninitialized memory (v2)

[Richard Knutsson]

Vegard Nossum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Nov 28, 2007 7:51 AM, Richard Knutsson <ricknu-0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/