linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:58:15 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, len.brown@...el.com, akpm@...l.org,
	jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, dwalker@...sta.com,
	nickpiggin@...oo.com.au
Subject: Re: [RFC] maximum latency tracking infrastructure (version 2)

* Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:

> > +#ifndef _INCLUDE_GUARD_LATENCY_H_
> > +#define _INCLUDE_GUARD_LATENCY_H_
> > +
> > +#include <linux/notifier.h>
> 
> Just
> 	struct notifier_block;

not really. Either use the #include, or if you want less stuff included, 
split notifier.h into notifier_types.h and notifier.h and move the data 
structure declarations to notifier_types.h and then #include 
notifier_types.h. (spinlock_types.h works like this.) This allows 
headers to be separated into pure 'data structure' and 'access methods' 
portions. Using explicit forward declarations is less cleaner.

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