linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] tracing: Shrink the size of struct ftrace_event

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:	Sat, 27 Jul 2013 07:35:38 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] tracing: Shrink the size of struct
 ftrace_event_field

On Sat, 2013-07-27 at 10:45 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>  
> > > +	field->filter_type = filter_type;
> > >  	field->offset = offset;
> > >  	field->size = size;
> > > -	field->is_signed = is_signed;
> > > +	field->is_signed = !!is_signed;
> > > +
> > > +	VERIFY_SIZE(filter_type);
> > > +	VERIFY_SIZE(offset);
> > > +	VERIFY_SIZE(size);
> 
> Isn't this wrap-a-macro-with-another-more-obscure-macro not a bit too
> much?
> 
> I mean,
>   	WARN_ON(filter_type > field->filter_type)
> 
> is much more readable than VERIFY_SIZE IMO.

Fair enough. My first version of the test was a bit more complex, and
then I simplified it, but kept the macro. Either is fine to me. But
yeah, I can see the point that the test isn't that complex, and there's
only three tests. If there were more or the test a bit more complex,
then I would definitely want the macro.

But you know me. I LOVE macros!

-- Steve


--
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/