linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] timers, pointers to functions and type safety

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]

Message-ID: <20061203231516.GG9876@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Mon, 4 Dec 2006 00:15:16 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] timers, pointers to functions and type safety

On Sun 2006-12-03 23:52:54, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > > What exactly is the pita here? Al only came up with some rather 
> > > theoretical problems with no practical relevance.
> > 
> > Lack of type-checking in timers is ugly.
> 
> It's a matter of perspective, a bit more type checking would be nice, but 
> breaking the API just for that is ugly as well. Unless there is a bad need 
> for it, I don't think it's worth it...

I do not think Al is breaking anything. He's adding that typechecking,
old interface can still stay for a while.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/