linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 3/5] ftrace trace event add missing semicolumn

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, 05 Jan 2011 01:37:08 -0500
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 3/5] ftrace trace event add missing semicolumn

On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 04:10:18 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker said:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 10:01:33PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > Can DEFINE_EVENT ever be sensibly used in a context where the additional ; will
> > cause an issue (for instance, a hypothetical array initialization like:
> >
> > static struct events[] = {DEFINE_EVENT(..), DEFINE_EVENT(...) }

> You can't do the above as DEFINE_EVENT() do more than just creating a structure.
> It can define functions and so.
>
> Plus it doesn't behave the same whether CREATE_TRACE_POINTS is defined or not:
> it can either define or declare the functions and structures.
>
> > or other places we usually do the 'do { X } while (0)' trick to make the code legal?
>
> I just can't figure out a sane case.

OK..  I was wondering if there was a corner case where we had to resolve the
one versus two semicolon issue in a specific way to guarantee syntactic
correctness, but it looks like this one gets to fight it out on taste/style
grounds...


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped