netdev - Re: [PATCH 5/8] [TFRC]: Loss interval code needs the macros/inlines that were moved

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, 10 Dec 2007 09:48:08 -0200
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To:	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] [TFRC]: Loss interval code needs the
	macros/inlines that were moved

Em Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:31:53AM +0000, Gerrit Renker escreveu:
> | > 
> | >   distcc[24516] ERROR: compile /root/.ccache/packet_his.tmp.aspire.home.net.24512.i on _tiptop failed
> | >   /usr/src/davem-2.6/net/dccp/ccids/lib/packet_history.c: In function '__one_after_loss':
> | >   /usr/src/davem-2.6/net/dccp/ccids/lib/packet_history.c:266: error: lvalue required as unary '&' operand
> <snip>
> | 
> | Because you do it this way:
> | 
> | tfrc_rx_hist_swap(&TFRC_RX_HIST_ENTRY(h, 0), &TFRC_RX_HIST_ENTRY(h, 3));
> | 
> | I checked and at least in this patch series all uses are of this type,
> | so why not do it using just the indexes, which would be simpler:
> | 
> | tfrc_rx_hist_swap(h, 0, 3);
> | 
> | With this implementation:
> | 
> | static void tfrc_rx_hist_swap(struct tfrc_rx_hist *h, const int a, const int b)
> | {
> | 	const int idx_a = tfrc_rx_hist_index(h, a),
> | 	      int idx_b = tfrc_rx_hist_index(h, b);
> | 	struct tfrc_rx_hist_entry *tmp = h->ring[idx_a];
> | 
> | 	h->ring[idx_a] = h->ring[idx_b];
> | 	h->ring[idx_b] = tmp;
> | }
> | 
> Agreed, that is useful in the present case, since then everything uses
> inlines. The only suggestion I'd like to make is to use `u8' instead of 
> `int' since the indices will have very low values.

Agreed.
 
> There is a related point: you will probably have noticed that loss_interval.c 
> also uses macros. I don't know if you are planning to convert these also into 
> inlines. I think that there would be less benefit in converting these, since
> they are locl to loss_interval.c and mostly serve to improve readability.

In general I'm against using macros for functions, so please always
consider doing things as inlines.

I'll read some more patches today and provide comments as to if I think
it is ok for now to keep it as macros.

> As I have at least one other patch to revise (plus another minor one),
> I'll rework this according to the above. 

Thank you.

- Arnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html