[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <459C3A8B.4040206@sandeen.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:21:47 -0600
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpreted bad_inode_ops
return values
Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:42:47 -0600 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net> wrote:
>> So here's the first stab at fixing it. I'm sure there are style points
>> to be hashed out. Putting all the functions as static inlines in a header
>> was just to avoid hundreds of lines of simple function declarations before
>> we get to the meat of bad_inode.c, but it's probably technically wrong to
>> put it in a header. Also if putting a copyright on that trivial header file
>> is going overboard, just let me know. Or if anyone has a less verbose
>> but still correct way to address this problem, I'm all ears.
>
> Since the only uses of these functions is to take their addresses, the
> inline gains you nothing
Hm, yes of course... my fingers just automatically type "static inline"
in header files I guess. :)
> and since the only uses are in the one file, you
> should just define them in that file.
Ok, will do. That seems to be the consensus.
Thanks,
-Eric
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists