linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] finish processor.h integration

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: <5d6222a80712181856l4f24104ei38ecd2e9f0c6422e@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:56:01 -0200
From:	"Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <glommer@...il.com>
To:	"Frans Pop" <elendil@...net.nl>
Cc:	"Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <gcosta@...hat.com>, ak@...e.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, anthony@...emonkey.ws, avi@...ranet.com,
	chrisw@...s-sol.org, ehabkost@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
	jeremy@...p.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	roland@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	tglx@...utronix.de, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	zach@...are.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] finish processor.h integration

On Dec 18, 2007 7:32 PM, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl> wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 2007 6:54 PM, Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl> wrote:
> > > Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> > > > What's left in processor_32.h and processor_64.h cannot be cleanly
> > > > integrated. However, it's just a couple of definitions. They are
> > > > moved to processor.h around ifdefs, and the original files are
> > > > deleted. Note that there's much less headers included in the final
> > > > version.
> > >
> > > Either I must be missing something or this patch was corrupted somehow.
> >
> > neither.
> > Note the else in the middle. It's just a mistake in the comment.
>
> Wouldn't an explicit second #ifdef block be a lot clearer (and improve
> maintainability) in this case?
>
> An #else can easily be overlooked among other preprocessor commands or when
> #ifdefs get nested.
>
I don't think so. a if-then-else kind of construction is very common,
well expected, and heavily used in kernel.
But even if I´m not right, this is functionally correct, and can be
addressed in a later cleanup patch if you really want to.


-- 
Glauber de Oliveira Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net

"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
--
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/