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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 16:51:45 +0800 From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, rmk@....linux.org.uk Subject: Re: [patch] use __asm__ and __volatile__ in i386/arm/s390 byteorder.h On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 01:24 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 18 June 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 18:33 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > This changes asm() to __asm__() and volatile to __volatile__ so that these > > > headers can be used with gcc's -std=c99. > > > > hmm but the kernel doesn't use -std=c99... > > The byteorder headers are exported to user space through > include/asm-generic/Kbuild.asm, and they are used by a number > of other exported headers, so they should work with any > gcc flags that a user might want to use. Even those headers which are exported are _still_ kernel headers¹. The 'caveat emptor' principle still applies to them, and we don't have to be _that_ anal about it. GNU extensions (and proper C types, for that matter) should be acceptable, surely? -- dwmw2 ¹ well, except perhaps for the very few headers which get included directly by glibc's headers, but aren't we still pretending that doesn't happen? - 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