linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm] define empty unxlate_dev_mem

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: <47986AC0.8000806@niasdigital.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:38:56 +1100
From:	Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com>
To:	Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] define empty unxlate_dev_mem_ptr on AVR32

Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:53:54 +1100
> Ben Nizette <bn@...sdigital.com> wrote:
> 
>>  /*
>> + * We just keep an empty definition of this around (a-la the asm-generic
>> + * implementation) to keep /dev/mem happy
>> + */
>> +#define unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(p, a) {}
> 
> Thanks, but this should be either
> 
> #define unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(p, a) do { } while (0)
> 
> or
> 
> static inline void unxlate_dev_mem_ptr(unsigned long phys, void *addr)
> {
> }
> 
> I prefer the latter.

Yeah I don't know what came over me; Mia culpa :-)

I prefer the latter too, though I think I was striving for consistency with the xlate_dev_mem_ptr #define.

--Ben
--
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/