[PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Andy Shevchenko]

The bit operations take boolean parameter and return also boolean
(in test_bit()-like cases). Don't threat booleans as integers when
it's not needed.

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 net/netlink/af_netlink.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
index 383631873748..d81e7a43944c 100644
--- a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
+++ b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
@@ -1623,9 +1623,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_set_err);
 /* must be called with netlink table grabbed */
 static void netlink_update_socket_mc(struct netlink_sock *nlk,
 				     unsigned int group,
-				     int is_new)
+				     bool new)
 {
-	int old, new = !!is_new, subscriptions;
+	int subscriptions;
+	bool old;
 
 	old = test_bit(group - 1, nlk->groups);
 	subscriptions = nlk->subscriptions - old + new;
@@ -2152,7 +2153,7 @@ void __netlink_clear_multicast_users(struct sock *ksk, unsigned int group)
 	struct netlink_table *tbl = &nl_table[ksk->sk_protocol];
 
 	sk_for_each_bound(sk, &tbl->mc_list)
-		netlink_update_socket_mc(nlk_sk(sk), group, 0);
+		netlink_update_socket_mc(nlk_sk(sk), group, false);
 }
 
 struct nlmsghdr *
-- 
2.40.0.1.gaa8946217a0b

Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:06:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> The bit operations take boolean parameter and return also boolean
> (in test_bit()-like cases). Don't threat booleans as integers when
> it's not needed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  net/netlink/af_netlink.c | 7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> index 383631873748..d81e7a43944c 100644
> --- a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> +++ b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> @@ -1623,9 +1623,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_set_err);
>  /* must be called with netlink table grabbed */
>  static void netlink_update_socket_mc(struct netlink_sock *nlk,
>  				     unsigned int group,
> -				     int is_new)
> +				     bool new)
>  {
> -	int old, new = !!is_new, subscriptions;
> +	int subscriptions;
> +	bool old;
>  
>  	old = test_bit(group - 1, nlk->groups);
>  	subscriptions = nlk->subscriptions - old + new;

So what is the outcome of "int - bool + bool" in the line above?

> @@ -2152,7 +2153,7 @@ void __netlink_clear_multicast_users(struct sock *ksk, unsigned int group)
>  	struct netlink_table *tbl = &nl_table[ksk->sk_protocol];
>  
>  	sk_for_each_bound(sk, &tbl->mc_list)
> -		netlink_update_socket_mc(nlk_sk(sk), group, 0);
> +		netlink_update_socket_mc(nlk_sk(sk), group, false);
>  }
>  
>  struct nlmsghdr *
> -- 
> 2.40.0.1.gaa8946217a0b
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Paolo Abeni]

On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 09:33 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:06:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The bit operations take boolean parameter and return also boolean
> > (in test_bit()-like cases). Don't threat booleans as integers when
> > it's not needed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  net/netlink/af_netlink.c | 7 ++++---
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> > index 383631873748..d81e7a43944c 100644
> > --- a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> > +++ b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> > @@ -1623,9 +1623,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_set_err);
> >  /* must be called with netlink table grabbed */
> >  static void netlink_update_socket_mc(struct netlink_sock *nlk,
> >  				     unsigned int group,
> > -				     int is_new)
> > +				     bool new)
> >  {
> > -	int old, new = !!is_new, subscriptions;
> > +	int subscriptions;
> > +	bool old;
> >  
> >  	old = test_bit(group - 1, nlk->groups);
> >  	subscriptions = nlk->subscriptions - old + new;
> 
> So what is the outcome of "int - bool + bool" in the line above?

FTR, I agree with Leon, the old code is more readable to me/I don't see
a practical gain with this change.

Cheers,

Paolo

Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:21:12PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 09:33 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:06:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > The bit operations take boolean parameter and return also boolean
> > > (in test_bit()-like cases). Don't threat booleans as integers when
> > > it's not needed.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  net/netlink/af_netlink.c | 7 ++++---
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> > > index 383631873748..d81e7a43944c 100644
> > > --- a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> > > +++ b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> > > @@ -1623,9 +1623,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_set_err);
> > >  /* must be called with netlink table grabbed */
> > >  static void netlink_update_socket_mc(struct netlink_sock *nlk,
> > >  				     unsigned int group,
> > > -				     int is_new)
> > > +				     bool new)
> > >  {
> > > -	int old, new = !!is_new, subscriptions;
> > > +	int subscriptions;
> > > +	bool old;
> > >  
> > >  	old = test_bit(group - 1, nlk->groups);
> > >  	subscriptions = nlk->subscriptions - old + new;
> > 
> > So what is the outcome of "int - bool + bool" in the line above?

The same as with int - int [0 .. 1] + int [0 .. 1].

Note, the code _already_ uses boolean as integers.

> FTR, I agree with Leon, the old code is more readable to me/I don't see
> a practical gain with this change.

This change does not change the status quo. The code uses booleans as integers
already (in the callers).

As I mentioned earlier, the purity of the code (converting booleans to integers
beforehand) adds unneeded churn and with this change code becomes cleaner at
least for the (existing) callers.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 01:54:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:21:12PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 09:33 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:06:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > The bit operations take boolean parameter and return also boolean
> > > > (in test_bit()-like cases). Don't threat booleans as integers when
> > > > it's not needed.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  net/netlink/af_netlink.c | 7 ++++---
> > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> > > > index 383631873748..d81e7a43944c 100644
> > > > --- a/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> > > > +++ b/net/netlink/af_netlink.c
> > > > @@ -1623,9 +1623,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(netlink_set_err);
> > > >  /* must be called with netlink table grabbed */
> > > >  static void netlink_update_socket_mc(struct netlink_sock *nlk,
> > > >  				     unsigned int group,
> > > > -				     int is_new)
> > > > +				     bool new)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	int old, new = !!is_new, subscriptions;
> > > > +	int subscriptions;
> > > > +	bool old;
> > > >  
> > > >  	old = test_bit(group - 1, nlk->groups);
> > > >  	subscriptions = nlk->subscriptions - old + new;
> > > 
> > > So what is the outcome of "int - bool + bool" in the line above?
> 
> The same as with int - int [0 .. 1] + int [0 .. 1].

No, it is not. bool is defined as _Bool C99 type, so strictly speaking
you are mixing types int - _Bool + _Bool.

Thanks

> 
> Note, the code _already_ uses boolean as integers.
> 
> > FTR, I agree with Leon, the old code is more readable to me/I don't see
> > a practical gain with this change.
> 
> This change does not change the status quo. The code uses booleans as integers
> already (in the callers).
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, the purity of the code (converting booleans to integers
> beforehand) adds unneeded churn and with this change code becomes cleaner at
> least for the (existing) callers.
> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:20:12PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 01:54:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:21:12PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 09:33 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:06:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > So what is the outcome of "int - bool + bool" in the line above?
> > 
> > The same as with int - int [0 .. 1] + int [0 .. 1].
> 
> No, it is not. bool is defined as _Bool C99 type, so strictly speaking
> you are mixing types int - _Bool + _Bool.

1. The original code already does that. You still haven't reacted on that.
2. Is what you are telling a problem?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:45:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:20:12PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 01:54:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:21:12PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 09:33 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:06:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > So what is the outcome of "int - bool + bool" in the line above?
> > > 
> > > The same as with int - int [0 .. 1] + int [0 .. 1].
> > 
> > No, it is not. bool is defined as _Bool C99 type, so strictly speaking
> > you are mixing types int - _Bool + _Bool.
> 
> 1. The original code already does that. You still haven't reacted on that.

The original code was int - int + int.

> 2. Is what you are telling a problema?

No, I'm saying that you took perfectly correct code which had all types
aligned and changed it to have mixed type arithmetic.

Thanks

> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:32:59PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:45:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:20:12PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 01:54:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:21:12PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 09:33 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:06:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > > > So what is the outcome of "int - bool + bool" in the line above?
> > > > 
> > > > The same as with int - int [0 .. 1] + int [0 .. 1].
> > > 
> > > No, it is not. bool is defined as _Bool C99 type, so strictly speaking
> > > you are mixing types int - _Bool + _Bool.
> > 
> > 1. The original code already does that. You still haven't reacted on that.
> 
> The original code was int - int + int.

No. You missed the callers part. They are using boolean.

> > 2. Is what you are telling a problema?
> 
> No, I'm saying that you took perfectly correct code which had all types
> aligned and changed it to have mixed type arithmetic.

And after this change it's perfectly correct code with less letters and hidden
promotions (as a parameter to the function) and hence requires less cognitive
energy to parse.

So, the bottom line is the commit message you don't like, is it so?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:44:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:32:59PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:45:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:20:12PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 01:54:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:21:12PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 09:33 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:06:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > > > So what is the outcome of "int - bool + bool" in the line above?
> > > > > 
> > > > > The same as with int - int [0 .. 1] + int [0 .. 1].
> > > > 
> > > > No, it is not. bool is defined as _Bool C99 type, so strictly speaking
> > > > you are mixing types int - _Bool + _Bool.
> > > 
> > > 1. The original code already does that. You still haven't reacted on that.
> > 
> > The original code was int - int + int.
> 
> No. You missed the callers part. They are using boolean.

I didn't miss and pointed you to the exact line which was implicitly
changed with your patch.

> 
> > > 2. Is what you are telling a problema?
> > 
> > No, I'm saying that you took perfectly correct code which had all types
> > aligned and changed it to have mixed type arithmetic.
> 
> And after this change it's perfectly correct code with less letters and hidden
> promotions (as a parameter to the function) and hence requires less cognitive
> energy to parse.
> 
> So, the bottom line is the commit message you don't like, is it so?

Please reread my and Paolo replies.

Thanks

> 
> -- 
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 08:10:58PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:44:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 04:32:59PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:45:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 03:20:12PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 01:54:18PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:21:12PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2023-07-11 at 09:33 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 01:06:24PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

> > > > > > > > So what is the outcome of "int - bool + bool" in the line above?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The same as with int - int [0 .. 1] + int [0 .. 1].
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, it is not. bool is defined as _Bool C99 type, so strictly speaking
> > > > > you are mixing types int - _Bool + _Bool.
> > > > 
> > > > 1. The original code already does that. You still haven't reacted on that.
> > > 
> > > The original code was int - int + int.
> > 
> > No. You missed the callers part. They are using boolean.
> 
> I didn't miss and pointed you to the exact line which was implicitly
> changed with your patch.

Yes, and this line doesn't change the status quo. We have boolean in the
callers that implicitly went to the callee as int.

> > > > 2. Is what you are telling a problema?
> > > 
> > > No, I'm saying that you took perfectly correct code which had all types
> > > aligned and changed it to have mixed type arithmetic.
> > 
> > And after this change it's perfectly correct code with less letters and hidden
> > promotions (as a parameter to the function) and hence requires less cognitive
> > energy to parse.
> > 
> > So, the bottom line is the commit message you don't like, is it so?
> 
> Please reread my and Paolo replies.

I have read them. My point is that you should also look at the callers
to see the big picture.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Re: [PATCH net-next][resend v1 1/1] netlink: Don't use int as bool in netlink_update_socket_mc()

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:06:24 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> The bit operations take boolean parameter and return also boolean
> (in test_bit()-like cases). Don't threat booleans as integers when
> it's not needed.

I don't have a strong opinion on the merit.
But I feel like the discussion is a waste of everyone's time,
so to discourage such ambivalent patches I'm going to drop this.
-- 
pw-bot: reject