netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 02/13] extended semantic of sk_buff::tstamp: lowest bit marks hardware time stamps

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, 12 Nov 2008 02:09:14 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	patrick.ohly@...el.com
Cc:	dada1@...mosbay.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, opurdila@...acom.com,
	shemminger@...tta.com, netdev@...eo.de, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	john.ronciak@...el.com, oliver@...tkopp.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 02/13] extended semantic of sk_buff::tstamp: lowest
 bit marks hardware time stamps

From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@...el.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:09:04 +0100

> On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 07:41 +0000, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Please use ktime_t instead of "union ktime"
> 
> Are you sure? 
> 
> include/linux/ktime.h says
>         typedef union ktime ktime_t;            /* Kill this */
> and the CodingStyle also seems to be against it.
> 
> I thought it would be good to avoid using the typedef in new code, but
> if consistency with the existing code is preferred, then I'll change it.

Well you then go ahead and cast return values to "ktime_t"
so this code is not even being consistent about the choice.
--
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