linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] struct list

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f4r3q7$fin$1@sea.gmane.org>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:03:51 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:  Re: [PATCH RFC] struct list_node

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:11:30 +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:

>  
> +/* A list node is the same as the head of the list, but it's useful to
> + * think of them as a separate type. */
> +struct list_node {
> +	struct list_head h;
> +};
> +
> +/* This allows us to support old style list_head as well as list_node. */
> +union list_head_or_node {
> +	struct list_head *_h;
> +	struct list_node *_n;
> +};
> +union list_head_or_node_const {
> +	struct list_head *_h;
> +	struct list_node *_n;
> +	const struct list_head *_ch;
> +	const struct list_node *_cn;
> +};
> +#define __lh(n) (((union list_head_or_node)(n))._h)
> +#define __clh(n) (((union list_head_or_node_const)(n))._h)
> +

Any reason why you don't use __attribute__ ((transparent_union)) ? I guess
this is exactly the case for which it was invented.

Cheers,
Jan

-
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/