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:	Tue, 2 Sep 2014 21:16:23 +0000
From:	"Rustad, Mark D" <mark.d.rustad@...el.com>
To:	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] semaphore: Resolve some shadow warnings

On Sep 1, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com> wrote:

> 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.

It would, but then it would be unclear as to what units the timeout was in. I have no other objection to timeout, I was just trying to preserve the meaning in the existing overloaded name. The "n" to me suggests a number and, if anything, number of jiffies conveys a more precise meaning than simply jiffies did.

-- 
Mark Rustad, Networking Division, Intel Corporation


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (842 bytes)