linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] semaphore: Resolve some shadow warnings

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:	Mon, 01 Sep 2014 16:41:54 -0700
From:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] semaphore: Resolve some shadow warnings

On Mon, 2014-09-01 at 14:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 05:19:26AM -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > From: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
> > 
> > Resolve some shadow warnings resulting from using the name
> > jiffies, which is a well-known global. This is not a problem
> > of course, but it could be a trap for someone copying and
> > pasting code, and it just makes W=2 a little cleaner.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Rustad <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> 
> Why isn't Mark sending this email?

Mark sent me several patches like this, for me to push upstream.  So, I
am making sure the appropriate owner is the receives the patch versus
blindly sending to LKML.

> 
> > ---
> >  kernel/locking/semaphore.c | 12 ++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> > index 6815171..7782dbc 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/semaphore.c
> > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
> >  static noinline void __down(struct semaphore *sem);
> >  static noinline int __down_interruptible(struct semaphore *sem);
> >  static noinline int __down_killable(struct semaphore *sem);
> > -static noinline int __down_timeout(struct semaphore *sem, long jiffies);
> > +static noinline int __down_timeout(struct semaphore *sem, long njiffies);
> >  static noinline void __up(struct semaphore *sem);
> 
> So what's wrong with calling it "timeout" instead? That's what most
> other sites do.

Timeout would work as well to resolve the shadow warnings.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)