linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86: more header untangling

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:	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:34:47 -0800
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86: more header untangling

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Another possibility would be to make a further distinction between 'local methods' 
> and 'compound methods'. Local methods are the ones that only relate to a given
> data type. Compound methods combine multiple types. We could allow local methods in 
> type headers, and forbid compound methods.
>   

Yes, that's pretty much the approach I've been taking.  Particularly 
since these little helper functions are smoothing over a given type 
being defined in different ways in different environments (the types 
themselves are different, but the types of the functions operating on 
them are the same).

    J
--
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/