On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 03:24:35PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr, at 04:18:41PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On 25 April 2016 at 16:15, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 25 Apr, at 03:12:01PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > >> >+static void efi_call_virt_check_flags(unsigned long flags, const char *call)
> > >> >+{
> > >> >+ unsigned long cur_flags;
> > >> >+ bool mismatch;
> > >> >+
> > >> >+ local_save_flags(cur_flags);
> > >> >+
> > >> >+ mismatch = !!((cur_flags ^ flags) & ARCH_EFI_IRQ_FLAGS_MASK);
> > >>
> > >> nit: the assignment itself is already a conversion to bool, so the
> > >> excitement is redundant here.
> > >
> > > This was intentional. I asked Mark to make this change so that it's
> > > explicit for the developer that we're performing the type conversion.
> >
> > But replacing an implicit boolean cast with an explicit one makes
> > little sense, no? Don't we simply want '!= 0' here if you need a
> > boolean expression?
>
> Aha but '!!' is fewer characters to type!!
>
> I'm not that bothered as long as we don't stuff an int into a bool
> without giving the programmer some idea we're doing that. It's not
> about the compiler getting it wrong, more about a developer
> introducing a bug when they change the code in the future.
>
> Unless anyone objects, I'll fix this up to use '!= 0' when I apply it.
I have no strong preference so long as the code is correct.
Another option is to get rid of the bool entirely:
flags ^= cur_flags;
if (!WARN_ON(flags & ARCH_EFI_IRQ_FLAGS_MASK))
return;
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
