linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/3] m68k/mac: Make mac_hid_mouse_emulate

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:	Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:51:02 -0400
From:	"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc:	"Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-input@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] m68k/mac: Make mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() declaration visible

On 7/20/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:47:36PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi Geert,
> >
> > On 7/20/07, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> >> From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> >>
> >> m68k/mac: Make mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() declaration visible
> >>
> >> drivers/char/keyboard.c: In function 'kbd_keycode':
> >> drivers/char/keyboard.c:1142: error: implicit declaration of function
> >> 'mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons'
> >>
> >> The forward declaration of mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() is not visible
> >> on
> >> m68k because it's hidden in the middle of a big #ifdef block.
> >>
> >> Move it to <linux/hid.h>, correct the type of the second parameter, and
> >> include <linux/hid.h> where needed.
> >
> > linux/hid.h contains definitions needed for drivers speaking HID
> > protocol, I don't think we want to put quirks for legacy keyboard
> > driver there. I'd just move the #ifdef within drivers/char/keyboard.c
> > for now.
> >...
>
> If you only move it you will keep the bug of the wrong second parameter.
>
> But if you move it to any header file gcc is able to figure out such
> errors itself instead of them being nasty runtime errors.
>
> Such prototypes in C files are really bad since (like in this case) they
> prevent the finding of bugs. It doesn't matter which header file you put
> the prototype into (it can even be a new one), but it belongs into a
> header file.
>

I am OK with adding a new header file. I was just saying that placing
that declaration in linux/hid.h makes about the same sense as putting
it into linux/scsi.h

-- 
Dmitry
-
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/