On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:07:36AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2019-09-26, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:03:29AM +0200, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > > +int is_zeroed_user(const void __user *from, size_t size)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long val;
> > > + uintptr_t align = (uintptr_t) from % sizeof(unsigned long);
> > > +
> > > + if (unlikely(!size))
> > > + return true;
> >
> > You're returning "true" and another implicit boolean with (val == 0)
> > down below but -EFAULT in other places. But that function is int
> > is_zeroed_user() Would probably be good if you either switch to bool
> > is_zeroed_user() as the name suggests or rename the function and have
> > it return an int everywhere.
>
> I just checked, and in C11 (and presumably in older specs) it is
> guaranteed that "true" and "false" from <stdbool.h> have the values 1
> and 0 (respectively) [§7.18]. So this is perfectly well-defined.
>
If you declare a function as returning an int, return ints and don't mix
returning ints and "proper" C boolean types. This:
static int foo()
{
if (bla)
return true;
return -1;
}
is just messy.
>
> Personally, I think it's more readable to have:
>
> if (unlikely(size == 0))
> return true;
> /* ... */
> return (val == 0);
>
> compared to:
>
> if (unlikely(size == 0))
> return 1;
> /* ... */
> return val ? 0 : 1;
Just do:
if (unlikely(size == 0))
return 1;
/* ... */
return (val == 0);
You don't need to change the last return.
Also, as I said in a previous mail: Please wait for rc1 (that's just two
days) to be out so you can base your patchset on that as there are
changes in mainline that cause a merge conflict with your changes.
Thanks!
Christian
