linux-kernel - Re: Accessor macros vs reference counting

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:	Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:16:22 +1030
From:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
CC:	WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kyle McMartin <kyle@...isc-linux.org>
Subject: Re: Accessor macros vs reference counting

Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:14:08PM +0800, WANG Cong wrote:
>   
>> Use get_personality() macro instead of explicit reference
>> for parisc code.
>> -	if (personality(current->personality) == PER_LINUX32
>> +	if (personality(get_personality()) == PER_LINUX32
>>     
>
> Hm.  We have an interesting clash of conventions here.
>
> On the one hand, we have the java-style accessor convention.
> get_personality()/set_personality().
>   

Is get_personality() thought to be better than current->personality?  To
me, the latter seems more meaningful, and I'd rather see it than the former.
--
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/